Wednesday, October 29, 2008

On The Percieved Difficulty of Game Rules, and the Resulting Real Difficulty of Scaring Up Players

Used to be I could scare up a game with a six-page rulebook of densely packed type with no problem. Avalon Hill and SPI, the two manufacturers of complex simpulation-oriented games in my collection, wrote rules that worked for the most part, with much fewer "grey areas" requiring in-game on-the-fly fixing than today's games offer, and they did so in a way that enabled the players of those games to get down to the nitty gritty without worrying about knowing the rules by heart, by using a format called "The Case System" (more on that in another post).

Today, however, there is a perception that any non-RPG with a text-only rulebook of more than two pages is "too hard", and getting players for such games is next-to impossible.

I think this attitude springs from the preponderance of RPGs with their by-necessity laxer rulesets that are open to wide interpretation, and the rise of the computer gaming industry, which offers the singular advantage that you don't need to learn any rules, just pick them up as you play by intuition. Gamers also seem to feel that the game should bend to player expectations rather than the player should learn to play the game. There is something to be said for that approach, but consider what would be lost if we brought the same viewpoint to chess. The whole point of the game would be lost.

The manufacturers of games have gone the TV route on this one too, "dumbing-down" their games for the percieved audience (which apparently has the attention span of a speed-addled gnat with ADD), resulting in games where the challenge is relatively low and the complexity of play is all-but non-existant. That isn't really important in and of itself because I can always just not buy or play those games, but it also makes todays gamer less inclined to stretch themselves.

Games I once had no trouble at all getting people to play now are all-but impossible to fill out. Circus Maximus, Civilization, Dune, Conquistador, Kingmaker were all AH games I had to schedule multiple sessions of just to accomodate the people who wanted to play. Now, I can't get enough players to make the games work properly.

I joined a web-based community that exists for the sole purpose of getting people together for games. In recent weeks I have polled the membership as to their interest in the following:

Game TitleGame TypeCommentResponse
CivilizationAvalon Hill BoardgamePlays itself for the most partNo Takers
Zombies!!!Board GameTrivially Easy (< 1 page of rules)Two takers, was looking for 5 to 11
Red DwarfRPGSF played for laughsCricket Noise
Empire of the Petal ThroneRPGEmphasis on Role Playing in an alien cultureNo Takers
TravellerRPGSpace OperaNo Interest whatsoever
Call of CthulhuRPGGothic HorrorNo Interest, but already have one game in rotation

If I can't scare up a game of Civilization, a game that really does play the fiddly bits on automatic pilot leaving the big picture decisions to the players, what earthly chance do I have of ever playing another game of Star Soldier or Azhanti High Lightning, games of considerable complexity and high levels of simulation?

What is doubly irritating is that people are willing enough to talk about how they want to play this or that game, then become evasive when actually asked to sit down at the board/table/whatever. People argue bitterly on the 'net about various facets of this game or that, sometimes becoming very heated on the subject, but actually suggest playing the game in question and the conversation dries up.

I'm going back to an earlier method people used before the internet became a fact of life: cards pinned to the corckboard in the game store. You don't get responses to them either but at least no-one fights with you.

Yet Another Game Blog?

Well, the fact is that I have been a keen player of serious board games, wargames and RPGs since the mid 70s and I have a lot to say about them (sometimes). I'm clogging a couple of boards up with my dribble on this subject and the tiome has come for a change of direction.

Will anyone else be interested in what I say? I don't know and I don't care very much. This is really for my own satisfaction. Over the next few weeks I'll be talking, when the mood takes me, about games I'm playing, have played or want to play.

Sometimes I may talk about the people who play them too, but that won't be the primary focus as it usually leads to ranting and there're plenty of other places to do that more constructively.

Sometimes I'll talk about actual games I've played, either to constructively analyse the flow of the play and the ease of the rules, sometimes just to vent about the other people sitting around the table .