Please note, I did not do this interview it came from a website I stumbled
across :).
Tom.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Webb" <Webbsoft_at_...>
To: "NetEpic Mailing List" <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:04 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] FW: Jervis
> 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
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Wed Aug 01 2001 - 15:03:07 UTC