Reply To: Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets

[oriskany 60771xp 9]

The only aspect of this post / thread with which I disagree is the order of the first two words.

Rather than: “Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets[?]”

How about: “IT IS time for some more critical analysis of rule sets.”

I haven’t tried it myself, but I have spoken with people I trust who have already tried SPQR and … yeah, not fans.

In everyone’s defense, however, I can say that presenting a rule set “critically” requires presenters to KNOW the rule set and playing it several times.  This means time, a commodity in which everyone involved in any kind of internet content creation is always critically short.

Also, having anything but glowing recommendations for rule sets, no matter how mediocre, is a fast way get yourself frozen out on no-contact lists.  I can speak from personal experience.  For the record and to be clear, OTT has never ever treated me this way.  Other companies have, however.  For me it’s no big deal, in fact it’s almost a point of pride.  But OTT is not in that position.

All my favorite games, miniature-based or not, have major flaws which I have been more than honest about in articles, videos, etc.

That said, shining at least a partial spotlight on rules / system quality might help us all include the 2/3 of the wargame market almost unrecognized in this community … games by designers like Jim Dunnigan, Alan Arvold, Ty Bomba, Joseph Miranda, people who have won award after award after award after award … Designers like Jim Dunnigan who won Designer of the Millenium, and now have a award named after them (probably because they ran out of awards to give designers of this caliber).