INTERVIEW WITH JERVIS RE: EPIC AND 40k -
----------------------------------------
(Just thought you might be interested, Games Workshop did the right thing
when they created EPIC 40k, we are just not as sophisticated players as
them. Note also that the Games Workshop link to us has been removed.)
One of the main criticisms when the new 40k came out was that it was too
streamlined, dumb-downed was the expression, though that seems to have
levelled off now. Why did you start to reduce the complexity of the game?
Well, there are a number of reasons � we were expecting people to react much
more negatively to the new edition of the game than they did, to be honest,
so we have been pleasantly surprised with the reaction to it. There are a
number of answers to that. First we know from experience that although the
game may seem streamlined now, by the time we have finished all the things
we would like to do with it over the next few years, it will be every bit as
complicated and detailed as almost anything else we have done. So, you have
to bring things back into line when you launch a new edition. It is like
pruning a tree, is the analogy I like to use. As games systems develop, not
all the things are that good as they develop, so when you get a chance to do
a revamp, you tend to prune it back, bring it back under control, get rid of
all the things that did not work, keep the things that did. But that being
said, we were also very aware, that with 2nd edition, we had a game that was
fundamentally flawed on one level � you had a games system that had
developed from a narrative skirmish game, in Rogue Trader, combined with a
set of army lists that assumed that you were going to be fielding large
armies, so we had a choice. We could either make the system work with armies
players were typically using in the game or go wholeheartedly into making a
it a skirmish game which works with smaller forces. All the feedback
suggested that players did not want to have game where they fielded 30 or 40
models and go back to that skirmish level. They wanted to use their whole
army, so the trick was to come up with a game system that worked on that
level. So effectively, we started from scratch again and said, ok we need a
game that is clean and smooth to play as Warhammer is for fantasy battles,
and I think we achieved that. You cannot streamline a game by leaving
everything in, it does not make sense. So some had to go, some had to be
smoothed out, but the nature of games design is that the level of detail in
the game depends on the scale you are playing at. If you are playing an game
like Necromunda, or a skirmish or role-playing game, you can have a lot more
detail than when you are fielding an army of 150 models. You can put the
detail in for a game like that, but it becomes clunky, unwieldy and does not
work. I think also, what players tend to underestimate very strongly is that
dumbing down is something that is done for younger players. Younger players
have no trouble with any of our systems, they pick them up very quickly.
And they always forget they were youngsters once and that they had no
trouble. . .
Absolutely. In the 2nd edition of 40k, none of the younger players had any
trouble picking it up. Rather what you tend to do as you get older and more
sophisticated within the hobby itself is that you learn to appreciate
elegant games design. As a Games Designer I really like rules that do a lot
with very little, so you end up looking at a rule and you say, well does
this add anything to the game, is it needed, or is it chrome just for the
sake of chrome. You become quite zealous about that kind of thing. I have to
say with Epic we probably took that too far. That games design for Andy and
myself in many ways really captured what I am saying, it is very clean, very
sharp.
There was a bigger out cry about streamlining the rules for Epic than there
was for 40k but I must admit that was the most subtle set of rules I have
ever come across � there is a lot in just a few pages.
It does a lot with a little. Now, there was a lesson we learnt. To be honest
of all the things I have designed, I said Blood Bowl was the best game ever
I believe I ever designed, but when Epic came out we were so proud of it ,
really pleased with it. It is a game that we still love to play. We were
very disappointed with the attitude of older players and it taught us a lot,
that our tastes were more sophisticated than the big bulk of the market that
the game was going to reach who were players who sometimes perceive
complexity as sophistication, so we learnt that we have to throw a bit of
grit into the games systems that players can catch on to � because they are
not Games Designers like us they don�t, say, see this beautiful elegant
machine, they like a bit of detail. So what you can say when we add in bits
of clutter and grit with the Codexes coming, that is dumbing the system down
in many ways. If the truth be known the Games Development team would
probably play 40k with the lists in the rulebook, maybe stream them down a
bit more. But you don�t because you know people want more than that and so
you have to learn to split your own desires � I am 40 years old, I have been
playing games since I was 11, 30 years - what I want from a wargame is very
different from someone who has been playing for 5 years so I have to think
back to that time, and say my job is to give people what they want.
Do you think one game system can cover everyone?
No, I think there is a lot of room for different games, you�ll see that over
the coming years Games Workshop will explore that. The difficulty we have
with doing secondary games systems, is that it is very difficult to maintain
ongoing support for them , so even with a very cool game, we don�t
necessarily have all the resources available to provide support forever. So
we tend to bring it out and finish it, say Ok, there is the game, it is done
now, it is in the range. We then find it difficult to provide new stuff for
it if players want it, That is our current dilemma, how we deal with that
situation.
Is there a factor where games tend to feed off each other? That is one thing
we noticed in our group, where we play 40k and we have huge Epic armies.
When Gothic came out we said great, we can have huge campaigns, playing
Gothic, then down to Epic, then finally down to 40k.
I think there are certain types of core game supplements, Gothic, for
instance, or Siege for Warhammer, that allow you to potentially do very
exciting campaigns and things. What we try to avoid doing is integrate them
directly, because the trick is to do it yourself, if you have Gothic, Epic
and 40k and like the idea of running a big campaign, then you need to
organise it and do it, that is the fun of the hobby. So it is not a
deliberate policy to make them integrated, though it excites us to. With
Epic one thing we liked a lot was the detachment system. You could have a
detachment that was literally your 40k army. Interestingly it does not make
a very good Epic detachment, but if you are playing a campaign what you will
need are some detachments in Epic that you can send off to do 40k missions.
So funnily enough, Epic really starts to shine in a campaign setting because
you get hybrid organisations that are designed to be a combined arms force,
not terribly effective on an Epic battlefield but perfect to send off to
capture the power station or something like that.
One question I have to ask � the Flying Skulls. What are they? Can we kill
Orks with them?
(Laughs) I could not possibly comment.
Fair enough! The most popular question I received by far was about the
Squats. Where are they, what are they doing?
There is a set of notes from me going into the Journal about how players
with Squat armies can integrate them into their games. Basically, from our
point of view, we will explain what has happened to the Squat homeworlds and
how you can use existing army lists as stand-in army lists that allow you to
field Squat models and it brings the situation up to date. There is some
possibility of revisiting the idea of Dwarves in 40k at some point in the
future but effectively, with that article as far as we are concerned, Squats
are dealt with, we won�t do a proper army list for them, there will be the
stand-in army lists that people can use. We have some nice ideas of what we
can do with Dwarves in 40k at some time in the future, but we want a bit of
separation from the Squat background, we don�t like the name, we don�t like
the actual army list ourselves, none of the Games Developments team are
inspired by it, and so they are going on the back burner and maybe we�ll
return to it completely fresh. The closest parallel would be the way we left
Slann out of Warhammer, then returned as the Lizardmen. The original idea
was not very strong, we did not like it very much, so we left it to one
side, rested them, then came back with a revitalised system.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Received on Wed Aug 01 2001 - 09:04:09 UTC