A few thoughts/gripes about recent game modern game design.

[Alai]

I think we can also draw a line from the RQ concept of chaos to the writings of Joseph Campbell and the mono-myth.

Possibly? What would said line look like, in a bit more detail?

(Extra beatings if we end up with Jung and Peterson too...)

 

[TristramEvans]

I thought WHFRP came out in 1986. The wargame, which was just Warhammer at the time came out in 1983.

the original Warhammer in 1983 was a blend of skirmish miniatures game and RPG, billing itself as a "mass combat fantasy roleplaying game", and utilized a GM and published narrative scenario packs/modules. It was in third edition that it split into a seperate RPG and wargame, and in 4th edition that it excised all RPG elements t create the tournament-style wargame it's known as day.

 

[Sharrow]

the original Warhammer in 1983 was a blend of skirmish miniatures game and RPG, billing itself as a "mass combat fantasy roleplaying game", and utilized a GM and published scenario packs/modules. It was in third edition that it split into a seperate RPG and wargame, and in 4th edition that it excised all RPG elements t create the tournament-style wargame it's known as day.

My recollection was that the RPG elements were fairly crap. We never used them, that's for sure.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

My recollection was that the RPG elements were fairly crap. We never used them, that's for sure.

Yeah, even at the time the general reviews were "good wargame, crap RPG".

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah, even at the time the general reviews were "good wargame, crap RPG".

so...D&D 4th edition?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

so...D&D 4th edition?

4th ed is mainly cited as a good wargame by people who don't actually have many other reference points.

I don't think it's terrible, but I don't think it's as great as some make out either. There's better skirmish level tactical combat wargames out there and there's also better tactical RPGs.

Coincidentally, this is also pretty much word for word my view on Chainmail.

 

[TristramEvans]

4th ed is mainly cited as a good wargame by people who don't actually have many other reference points.

I don't think it's terrible, but I don't think it's as great as some make out either. There's better skirmish level tactical combat wargames out there and there's also better tactical RPGs.

Coincidentally, this is also pretty much word for word my view on Chainmail.

I only ever played the Gamma World version, and honestly I'd say it felt more like a boardgame than a wargame.

 

[DeadBob]

4th ed is mainly cited as a good wargame by people who don't actually have many other reference points.

That has been a notable theme at places like TBP.

I remember a number of people talking about it as a great minis wargame, and I truly wondered what they thought those sorts of war games were normally like in terms of mechanics or play.

Because...blecch.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

That has been a notable theme at places like TBP.

I remember a number of people talking about it as a great minis wargame, and I truly wondered what they thought those sorts of war games were normally like in terms of mechanics or play.

Because...blecch.

Yeah, I'd argue that the fact that PCs and monsters use different maths is, in itself, enough to suggest it's heavily flawed as a wargame. If it is a wargame, it's one written by people who seem to have no idea of developments in the space over the last 30 years.

 

[DeadBob]

If it is a wargame, it's one written by people who seem to have no idea of developments in the space over the last 30 years.

Exactly

 

[TristramEvans]

My recollection was that the RPG elements were fairly crap. We never used them, that's for sure.

I've never played 1st edition, though I own most of the 2nd edition scenarios, which includes my favourite wargame scenario of all time, The Tragedy of McDeath. For myself, 3rd edition is the purest version of the game, despite it's complexity. But it was really the blending of RPG elements to create a sort of...Warhammerstein that makes 3rd edition so much more personal than what Warhammer became. You are presented with a world, but you define the troops that make up your army, you design your war machines, create characters, and the Game Master facilitates taking the game beyond the constructs of a rigid tournament PvP. It scales from Mordheim to mass battle, and it was through this version of Warhammer that I really came to understand the thin line between the two hobbies of wargames & RPGs.

 

[CRKrueger]

so...D&D 4th edition?

 

[TJS]

4th ed is mainly cited as a good wargame by people who don't actually have many other reference points.

I don't think it's terrible, but I don't think it's as great as some make out either. There's better skirmish level tactical combat wargames out there and there's also better tactical RPGs.

Coincidentally, this is also pretty much word for word my view on Chainmail.

It's...I think clearly influenced by miniature based war games - perhaps more so than MMOs - but individual characters are too complex to work as a wargame - plus once you take it out of the rpg context and put it in the wargame certain combinations of characters that wouldn't normally arise in rpgs would see the table (eg someone fielding a Barbarian and 4 Warlords), as a tactical rpg it really does rely on the rpg players desire to play characters that are different from each other and have particular niches. (This would possibly see whole role such as the Defender - always overvalued - be circumvented.)

On the other hand it's focus on giving characters specific roles really limits the tactical options of player characters in a rpg and it remained always a largely strategic game like 3e (the choices you make in character creation still very much outweigh the tactical decision making at the table - most of the tactical play in Wargame is learning curve - learning how to best use the combination of powers and feats that you have - once you do that the tactics become mostly a solved problem*.)

4e has the potential components to be an interesting tactical game - but it would need to be greatly reworked.

*The designers at WotC clearly realised this even if it was the kind of issue that the edition war made impossible to discuss as when they rewrote Gamma World on the 4e chassis they made the rules so that the powers you had were random and constantly changing - implicitly seeming to recognise that the experimentation with new powers was where the fun was in the game part of combat.

 

[Sharrow]

That has been a notable theme at places like TBP.

I remember a number of people talking about it as a great minis wargame, and I truly wondered what they thought those sorts of war games were normally like in terms of mechanics or play.

Because...blecch.

I think it's a great tactical game of playing fantasy superheroes. Not a wargame, and not really 'tactical' in the wargame sense, though positioning is very important - it's more what I call 'microtactical', where the 'tactics' are about individual moves and power uses. It's only marginally 'skirmish' to my mind, because to me a skirmish wargame means a section to platoon of guys, and D&D4 is for smaller groups than that, as a general case.

The thing is, in the D&D space it stands out (once various mistakes and oversights were fixed) as being really well-balanced and reliably so, and having interesting choices for everyone to make. It's not perfect, by any means - for one thing it's easy to make a character that's just not quite what it should be (just don't have the highest possible primary stat, or take powers that use a secondary stat), because so many powers simply don't work if they miss.

 

[AsenRG]

Coincidentally, this is also pretty much word for word my view on Chainmail.

So could you argue that 4e was following the tradition as set by Gygax? Asking for a friend...

 

[Baulderstone]

On the other hand it's focus on giving characters specific roles really limits the tactical options of player characters in a rpg and it remained always a largely strategic game like 3e (the choices you make in character creation still very much outweigh the tactical decision making at the table - most of the tactical play in Wargame is learning curve - learning how to best use the combination of powers and feats that you have - once you do that the tactics become mostly a solved problem*.)

I've found this an issue in RPGs that have too much "game" in their resolution system. Combat in 4E has the complexity of a complete game, which initially can make it seem cool and interesting. However, it's like playing the same board game over and over again. If you burn out on that game, you tire of the whole RPG. The extra mechanical weight still slows the game down but no longer provides interesting options because everyone now knows the optimal action to take at any time.

To make a comparison, Call of Cthulhu, at least in the early editions I am familiar with, has very simple combat. I doesn't have lots of cool options for players to page through, but it does the job. While I don't want to run Lovecraftian horror all the time, I never get sick of the system itself. It quickly resolves combats without any fuss.

 

[Necrozius]

I’m starting to really favour game systems with universal mechanics (eg everything is a roll-under d100 roll) that can be abstracted (eg single roll to represent success at day-long research) to the very granular (eg roll Drive right now to avoid hitting that old lady crossing the street).

As soon as you get micro systems, mini-games and forced abstractions (eg to tackle a combat scene, bring out the dominoes, barter and gamble with other players, roll a single “how many HP do I have this scene” using your Existential Crisis stat and then subtract 2 dots from your Glorb pool, or three if you want to force the other team to play rock paper scissors once to randomize who goes first) you’ve lost me.

 

[DeadBob]

All I'm saying is that, by comparison to minis games made by say Ganesha Games or Joe McCullough, D&D 4e was just fucking clunky and overdesigned, and absolutely drags in RW time to resolve an encounter, even at lower levels.

Worse, people who knew I liked minis war games recommended 4e to me singing its praises.

Clearly they too had missed trends in minis skirmish/micro skirmish/warband games over the last couple of decades and going by really dated third-hand knowledge about playstyles associated with those games.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I've found this an issue in RPGs that have too much "game" in their resolution system. Combat in 4E has the complexity of a complete game, which initially can make it seem cool and interesting. However, it's like playing the same board game over and over again. If you burn out on that game, you tire of the whole RPG. The extra mechanical weight still slows the game down but no longer provides interesting options because everyone now knows the optimal action to take at any time.

To make a comparison, Call of Cthulhu, at least in the early editions I am familiar with, has very simple combat. I doesn't have lots of cool options for players to page through, but it does the job. While I don't want to run Lovecraftian horror all the time, I never get sick of the system itself. It quickly resolves combats without any fuss.

Yeah, it has a level of detail I think is only actually justified in a fullon consim. That's one of my main issue with it. It still feels like the decisions you make in character gen are at least as crucial as the ones you make in actual combat.

 

[DeadBob]

Yeah, it has a level of detail I think is only actually justified in a fullon consim. That's one of my main issue with it. It still feels like the decisions you make in character gen are at least as crucial as the ones you make in actual combat.

So a lot like Deckbuilding in a CCG or MathHammer style army building (not strictly limited to GW games by any stretch).

Yeah, I kinda hate both of those too , although I'll give more leeway to the CCGs since it is pretty much core to game play.

 

[Baulderstone]

So a lot like Deckbuilding in a CCG or MathHammer style army building (not strictly limited to GW games by any stretch).

Yeah, I kinda hate both of those too , although I'll give more leeway to the CCGs since it is pretty much core to game play.

The key difference in a CCG is that I can build a deck, play a game, then retune my deck or grab another deck before the next game.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

So a lot like Deckbuilding in a CCG or MathHammer style army building (not strictly limited to GW games by any stretch).

Yeah, I kinda hate both of those too , although I'll give more leeway to the CCGs since it is pretty much core to game play.

Yeah, back in my CCG days (Mythos and Illuminati: NWO primarily) building a deck was at least as much of part of the fun as playing it.

 

[Fritz]

Possibly? What would said line look like, in a bit more detail?

(Extra beatings if we end up with Jung and Peterson too...)

I'm thinking about the cosmogonic cycle which he discusses (along with the purpose of cults in that equation) a little in Hero With a Thousand Faces. I remember him going in more detail at the prodding of Bill Moyers in The Power of Myth.

I don't remember any mention of Jung in the Stafford interviews I've read (the one from White Wolf is a stand out because he also mentions Bob Dylan as inspiration). I'm unfamiliar with Peterson. May I have my beatings now? Please don't be gentle.

 

[SJB]

I believe that the Chaos/Law thing comes from Poul Anderson. That dates it to 1953 and Hero With a Thousand Faces is 1948, IIRC. The Anderson—to—Moorcock transmission is well known. Gygax discussed it and we know that Stafford got a lot of stuff from Gygax. Anyone got anything on Anderson-Campbell?

 

[TristramEvans]

k, do we have any quotes from Campbell circa 1948 regarding Law & Chaos?

Poul Anderson's version of Law & Chaos is not much in common with Warhammer, where Law is the civilizations & church and Chaos are the forces of nature, beasts and the fairies fighting back against the encroachment of religion. So he may very well have introduced the terms to fantasy Lit. (tentatively, I've only done enough cursory research to accept it as a hypothesis), but I'm going to discount it as being an influence on Warhammer when 1) Warhammer's concepts (in the beginning) almost exactly align with Moorcock's, 2) Moorcock was specifically named, many times, as a primary influence, and 3) I see no other element from Poul Anderson's fantasy world present in Warhammer that suggests it as a primary influence.

 

[TJS]

So a lot like Deckbuilding in a CCG or MathHammer style army building (not strictly limited to GW games by any stretch).

Yeah, I kinda hate both of those too , although I'll give more leeway to the CCGs since it is pretty much core to game play.

Yep.

And if you were to play it as a wargame, ie you and an opponent were to play it against each other, then character creation and coming up with synergies through that process would be 90% of the game.

It would be mostly a game of trying things out to see if they work.

 

[Voros]

I think the more likely direction of influence was Anderson influencing Moorcock and then Moorcock influencing Warhammer.

Moorcock was always effusive in his praise of Anderson's early fantasy novels and openly declared them an influence, although it is The Broken Sword (a masterpiece imo) rather than Three Hearts and Three Lions that he most often talks about and is the clearest influence on Elric and his similarly cursed sword.

Anderson's concept of Law & Chaos is also distinct and more clear cut than Moorcock's concept of Law/Chaos.

In Three Hearts the forces of Chaos are represented by the Nazis whereas in Moorcock, being an avowed anarchist, Chaos is more ambivalently, although not positively, portrayed.

 

[TristramEvans]

I think the more likely direction of influence was Anderson influencing Moorcock and then Moorcock influencing Warhammer.

Sure, I'm certain that's the case.

 

[SJB]

k, do we have any quotes from Campbell circa 1948 regarding Law & Chaos?

Poul Anderson's version of Law & Chaos is not much in common with Warhammer, where Law is the civilizations & church and Chaos are the forces of nature, beasts and the fairies fighting back against the encroachment of religion. So he may very well have introduced the terms to fantasy Lit. (tentatively, I've only done enough cursory research to accept it as a hypothesis), but I'm going to discount it as being an influence on Warhammer when 1) Warhammer's concepts (in the beginning) almost exactly align with Moorcock's, 2) Moorcock was specifically named, many times, as a primary influence, and 3) I see no other element from Poul Anderson's fantasy world present in Warhammer that suggests it as a primary influence.

It doesn’t take us anywhere direct, but I find that Anderson wrote an essay on Jung and his archetypal theory in 1968. So at the very least Anderson was a student of the Jungian tradition.

The Public Life of Sherlock Holmes: Poul Anderson’s “The Archetypal Holmes” – Black Gate

 

[Sharrow]

I believe that the Chaos/Law thing comes from Poul Anderson. That dates it to 1953 and Hero With a Thousand Faces is 1948, IIRC. The Anderson—to—Moorcock transmission is well known. Gygax discussed it and we know that Stafford got a lot of stuff from Gygax. Anyone got anything on Anderson-Campbell?

Anderson's law/order vs chaos/evil is straight out of medieval thought, so others whose works look like that may not have got it from him, but instead from knowing a little history. And WHFRP's law vs chaos feels to me like a cross between this and RQ - it has witch-hunters and general paranoia about chaos and chaotics, and it has Broos (sorry, 'chaos beastmen') and chaos mutations.

As I said before, it doesn't feel Moorcockian to me. No cycles, no balance, and chaos, while it might be all edge-lordy, doesn't really do civilisations and order isn't something that there's any sign you can have too much of.

 

[TristramEvans]

As I said before, it doesn't feel Moorcockian to me. No cycles,

literally all of Warhammer Fantasy's lore is predicated on the concept of cycles:

""the world is a cycle where the mortal nations are always doomed to be destroyed by the chaos invaders and that once the world is destroyed the survivors become gods and create the next world to defeat chaos."

The periodic waves ("storms") of Chaos every few hundred years in a continual cycle of destruction/renewal is the focal point of the Old World's history

no balance,

There was balance, until the Slann effed everything up, that's the premise essentially.

and chaos, while it might be all edge-lordy, doesn't really do civilisations

y/know, except their entire continent-spanning civilization?

Unlike Anderson's concept of Chaos, which is anti-civilization.

and order isn't something that there's any sign you can have too much of.

"If they [Gods of Law] were to succeed in overthrowing the Chaos Gods and establishing their rule over the Known World, all change and development would cease, and nothing would ever evolve or grow, just as the Chaos Gods' victory would ultimately result in the dissolution of all reality."

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

literally all of Warhammer Fantasy's lore is predicated on the concept of cycles:

""the world is a cycle where the mortal nations are always doomed to be destroyed by the chaos invaders and that once the world is destroyed the survivors become gods and create the next world to defeat chaos."

The periodic waves ("storms") of Chaos every few hundred years in a continual cycle of destruction/renewal is the focal point of the Old World's history

Where's that quote from out of interest? My understanding was that the cycle wasn't formalised as canon until the End Times but I could be wrong on that.

"If they [Gods of Law] were to succeed in overthrowing the Chaos Gods and establishing their rule over the Known World, all change and development would cease, and nothing would ever evolve or grow, just as the Chaos Gods' victory would ultimately result in the dissolution of all reality."

Also this from Ansell:

The Gods of Law were going to be even more ferocious than the Gods of Chaos.

We only have a tiny amount to go on, but what we have on Solkan specifically would agree with you. I think it's fair to say the idea of a Solkan ruled world was not presented positively.

Tome of Salvation gives us Solden, the God of Tyranny and Oppression. I would read him as either an alternative name for Solkan or maybe a minor law god. Either way, he isn't sympathetic.

 

[Sharrow]

literally all of Warhammer Fantasy's lore is predicated on the concept of cycles:

""the world is a cycle where the mortal nations are always doomed to be destroyed by the chaos invaders and that once the world is destroyed the survivors become gods and create the next world to defeat chaos."

The periodic waves ("storms") of Chaos every few hundred years in a continual cycle of destruction/renewal is the focal point of the Old World's history

See, there's no mention of any such thing in WHFRP 1e, so it's not part of the lore in it's origins. It might've been retconned in later, in a concious move to be more Moorcockian, but it's not there in the early writing.

"If they [Gods of Law] were to succeed in overthrowing the Chaos Gods and establishing their rule over the Known World, all change and development would cease, and nothing would ever evolve or grow, just as the Chaos Gods' victory would ultimately result in the dissolution of all reality."

I stand corrected on this - the gods of law are indeed seen as a step too far.

 

[Baulderstone]

One distinctive element of Warhammer's Chaos is it's radioactive nature, with warpstone being a kind of magical plutonium. I don't know if this is an influence but there is a real '50s atomic horror vibe to it with warpstone as magical plutonium. Going further back, the Barren Hills, an area in Talabecland where a meteor of warpstone had fallen, has the feel of The Colour Out of Space. The Barren Hills also reminds me of Roadside Picnic.

If we are talking about earlier games with mutants, I don't believe anyone has mentioned Metamorphosis Alpha or Gamma World. Gamma World was my fist experience with a random mutation table.

We only have a tiny amount to go on, but what we have on Solkan specifically would agree with you. I think it's fair to say the idea of a Solkan ruled world was not presented positively.

In my version of Warhammer, Solkan sees the world as a festering wound in the fabric of reality that needs to be cauterized, and his cult is dedicated to destroying the world in order to save the universe.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

If we are talking about earlier games with mutants, I don't believe anyone has mentioned Metamorphosis Alpha or Gamma World. Gamma World was my fist experience with a random mutation table.

Pretty sure Metamorphosis Alpha is the first ever RPG with random mutations. I *think* Runequest is the first fantasy game with them.

 

[TristramEvans]

One distinctive element of Warhammer's Chaos is it's radioactive nature, with warpstone being a kind of magical plutonium. I don't know if this is an influence but there is a real '50s atomic horror vibe to it with warpstone as magical plutonium. Going further back, the Barren Hills, an area in Talabecland where a meteor of warpstone had fallen, has the feel of The Colour Out of Space. The Barren Hills also reminds me of Roadside Picnic.

I always assumed Heavy Metal as the primary inspiration there, especially the Taarna storyline.

 

[TristramEvans]

Where's that quote from out of interest? My understanding was that the cycle wasn't formalised as canon until the End Times but I could be wrong on that.

well, I'm quoting from online there, but I'm relatively certain the cyclical nature was established in Realms of Chaos (I'll d some reading tonight), but it was definitely in place by 6th edition as it underpinned the major campaign that ended that edition (which The End Times was a kinda-sorta retcon/re-do of)

 

[TristramEvans]

See, there's no mention of any such thing in WHFRP 1e, so it's not part of the lore in it's origins.

There was a lot of lore before and during WFRP 1e besides that one rulebook. You can't draw a line in the sand there, after two prior editions, and say any other source, including the supplements for 1st edition, are retcons.

But generally speaking the fact that Moorcock was a huge influence isn't really up for dispute. It's been mentioned multiple times by every creator involved. The setting even had it's own explicit Elric etsy in 2nd edition - Kaleb Daark.

 

[lategamer]

There was a lot of lore before and during WFRP 1e besides that one rulebook. You can't draw a line in the sand there, after two prior editions, and say any other source, including the supplements for 1st edition, are retcons.

Yeah, I remember stuff - but I think it was in the accompanying material - White Dwarf. Goodness I miss the old version of that magazine. I remember I stopped reading around the time that the Skaven were invented. Not that I didn't like Skaven but their coverage in WD was skewing more towards their own games rather than being a generalist magazine.

But generally speaking the fact that Moorcock was a huge influence isn't really up for dispute. It's been mentioned multiple times by every creator involved. The setting even had it's own explicit Elric etsy in 2nd edition - Kaleb Daark.

Cloned in love.

 

[TristramEvans]

THE NATURE OF CHAOS

HISTORY. Rick Priestley’s unpublished guide to the metaphysics of Chaos.

awesomeliesblog.wordpress.com