At the Fall In convention this last November, I had the chance to talk at some length with my old friend Phil Viverito of HACK fame. Phil and his organization, the Jogglers, have developed a very complete and nicely packaged system of rules for the ancients and medieval periods. They are broken down into areas of historical interest (Biblical, Classical, etc.) to allow period specific rules to be used. Phil also has a very good web site for the rules and has published scenario booklets to go along with his rules. He has a prodigious capacity for attending a multitude of conventions each year and aficionados of the Hack rules system put on large numbers of games at those conventions he is unable to attend.

Yet we hear and read little about his system or any others for that matter other than the ubiquitous DBM/DBA or (occasionally) ARMATI rules. Why is this? What is the problem with getting some decent 'press' coverage from the mainstream hobby publications?

Most publishers and editors are content to flow with the current trends…i.e. the status quo, orthodox gaming systems presently in vogue. This is not hard to understand. Publications want to attract readers. Readers want to read about what's being played and the articles pertaining to these current systems are the ones which find the most favor and interest. Just look at the Courier feedback reports sometime.

Editors print what they receive, I know that from my own personal experience with SPEARPOINT and SAGA. If 4,000 gamers are playing DBM and a hundred are playing Medieval Warfare, which rules do you think generate more print? Do you see much in print on HACK, DAY OF BATTLE, LEGIO, MIGHT OF ARMS, et, al.? Why buck the DB trend? But it does not have to be this way. Most if not all of the wargaming journals are more than happy to print, indeed, even encourage articles that do not specifically deal with DB or ARMATI. Most editors and publishers are more than receptive to a variety of articles dealing with new rules systems. Mark Garcia and Stephen Neate (SPEARPOINT and SLINGSHOT editors respectively), Dick Bryant, Hal Thinglum and Duncan MacFarlane have always been encouraging and receptive to such articles. But writing articles only goes so far.

Let's face it, the orthodoxy is well entrenched. Wargamers are not going to be overly excited by just reading about something. They have to be shown and therein lies a very real obstacle to the expansion of alternative rules systems.

When DBM entered the wargaming scene, it was taunted as the successor to WRG 7th. Phil Barker had distanced himself from 7th in order to concentrate on the DB system and as such, WRG itself slowly lost interest in 7th. Though two further army list booklets for 7th were published, others were stalled and eventually fell into the limbo of the non-published. As players conformed to the DBM system, or joined ARMATI's ranks, the 7th players found themselves with a dwindling gaming base, few tournaments to play in, and a rules system being written off as "failing on life support."

Yet there were plenty of other rules systems out there. Bob Bryant's MIGHT OF ARMS, LEGIO, PHALANX, etc. all have adherents and can sometimes be seen at larger regional conventions. Still, there is little or no written coverage for these systems. True, I enjoy writing and also, having been a teacher in the distant pass, I also like to explain and show people how a game can be played. It is not a problem for me to be constantly working on articles, rules revisions, explanations and scenarios. It is fun.

But no matter how much you put into something-and Phil Viverito will agree with me on this, it takes other wargamers, interested in the same gaming system, to take a set of rules and put them into play at regional as well as local events, conventions and clubs. This is what brings them to the attention of large numbers of potential players, not simply printed articles. The coverage of new systems in related hobby publications is very important, of course. You must keep your product visible at all times. Yet "hands-on" play is what really attracts players.

So let's say all of these factors fall into place and what is the result? Do you see alternative rules articles in the society journals? No? Why not?

Theory

I have a theory, of course. Many people in the hobby are content to simply have someone to play a game with, the rules being fairly irrelevant insofar as the gaming situation goes. So long as both players have access to the rules and they are not terribly difficult to play, there is a fair level of acceptance and contentment.

The fact that DBM has been grafted onto the existing prevailing wargame system (WRG 7th) made it the overwhelming choice to fit the above criteria. Let's face it, most figures are based for the WRG system (ARMATI, HACK, and my own rules all accept this de facto basing) and most of us have played WRG at one time or another.

The tournament organizers (NASAMW here in the U.S.) grudgingly at first promoted the DBM system. But with its worldwide adoption, DBM has now all but taken over the tournament circuit. It has plenty of press. This is readily apparent from any reading of SLINGSHOT or SPEARPOINT. The continual revisions and ".1, .2, .3" editions appear like clockwork every few months, as they have done with 7th before this. With this onslaught of print, convention play and overall acceptance by the wargaming community, it is no wonder that this system is so deeply established. (Note that I do not receive much DB material for SAGA…I receive no ARMATI related articles, a few allusions to WARHAMMER Ancients, some WRG 7th and the rest of the things I receive relate to reviews, historical data, convention reports etc. I have tried to be objective in what goes into each issue of SAGA. I refuse to turn this journal into a 'house organ' for my rules. That is self-serving and wrong. Too many people read SAGA for other purposes than rules discussions.)

Other systems, to succeed, must attempt to build their own base of players, and not from DBM'ers who are content with what they have. New rules must gain converts from new players and older gamers who have dropped out of the period because of their dislike or disinterest in the WRG style of gaming. Yet, how do we find these players without help from the mainstream hobby establishment? Like I said in the beginning, no matter how great your product, without support it will wither and fade away (just look at what happened to SHIELDBEARER). A gradual, growing progression of press, convention appearances, outside reviews, constant playing by small, active groups who like your rules enough to show them to their friends and the strong support of loyal players in other areas all make for the possibility of eventual success.

As MW and AW are played more, they are experienced and seen by greater numbers of gamers. Some of these gamers are so into the WRG mindset that they cannot get away from certain gaming concepts that have less relevance to historical battle than to sheer gamesmanship. I remember when initially playtesting MW, I lost 19 games straight because of my reliance on my old 7th gaming experience! Other gamers are too used to the die roll dependence of some systems. Trying to save your poor tactics with dice fails in MW/AW. I advise new players to read some military history and learn from successful generals, then develop your own tactics. Therein lies success.

In the end, if you have a good product, people will be drawn to it. Though the mainstream will continue to stick with the current popularly used gaming systems, there are plenty of others who are looking for something different. I have been extremely fortunate with my rules. Through good luck and timing, MW and AW have both been picked up by the Foundry, which will be editing, illustrating, promoting and distributing the final products, probably late next year. Because of this relationship, the rules will reach a much wider audience than my own limited efforts and resources could ever envision.

As more gamers become familiar with them, I anticipate that the rules will be accepted, played and yes, liked. For that is the final reward. To have a solid, historically accurate, fun game that people actually enjoy playing and writing about.

(Note: Our first ever MW tournament will be held at HISTORICON in July of 1999. The armies will be 25mm. E-mail me at tlgore@frontiernet.net for more information)