Re: [NetEpic ML] FW: Jervis

From: Kelvin Henderson <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 10:32:29 +1000

>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.

O.K. This is something I can agree with doing. Sometimes a Games System
does get out of control and this almost always happens with a GW
system. They are like kids in a candy shop, out of control making "cool
new things" for each army they write. But most of the time when they
decide to "prune the tree" as Jervis puts it, they prune the wrong
things. They more often than not prune out the runes that work and are
good fun to use and put in clunky, weird rules that often have holes you
can drive a truck through. The Gold edition of the Blood Bowl rules is one
example. Jervis closed a number of what he considered "holes" which have
made little actual difference to the way the game plays, and introduced a
few newer rules that some players in our league are questioning about the
kinds of plays they allow! Crazy! But this seems to be GW's Modus
Operandii. They need to take leaf from GZG's book. Jon LISTENS to his
customers and gives them what they ask for!

>or is it chrome just for the
>sake of chrome.

Sometimes, chrome for the sake of chrome is what players are looking
for. I got into the 40K universe for the background rather than the
game. If players want the Chrome, give them the chrome. In some ways, GW
have a real business mentality (miniatures that cost the earth and keep
going up, no real sales, flashy stores, etc.) but when it comes to the
Games Designers, they seem to really lack the attitude of the "customer is
always right".

>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.

I must say that I am glad I am not the only person on this list to have
taken offense at this particular part of the interview. How dare he claim
his tastes are more sophisticated than mine! How dare he claim to know
more about what makes a great games system than I do! For this it really
comes down to the old axiom "I may not know art, but I know what I
like!". For myself, if I had published a system like Epic40K that I was
extremely proud of and then the public threw it back in my face telling me
it sucked, I'd take a long hard look at what I did wrong and what I could
do to make the system more acceptable, not sulkily claim that I was right
and the rest of the world were a bunch of unsophisticated pigs and didn't
know a good thing when they saw it. I get stroppy at artists who do the
same thing.

For heaven's sake, he writes games for consumption by the public. Listen
to what the public wants! I thought that Epic40K was a game with a lot of
potential, but poor execution. Jervis trimmed the tree back until it died
here. Bloody GW. If ever I was convinced they saw themselves as better
than their market, this clinched it! Long live NetEpic! Long live GZG!

-Kelvin...

"Look, just give me some inner peace
or I'll mop the floor with you."
-Homer
Received on Thu Aug 02 2001 - 00:32:29 UTC