Bringing in new Oldhammerererererers

They are interesting questions that after much deliberation I've decided I can't really answer.

Like Erny said I think the best way to turn people onto the broad, indescribable, multi headed beast that might loosely be described as Oldhammer is to get it out there by playing the games, blogging and forums like this.
When I summon the courage to venture outside of the project logs on warseer, I sometimes chime in on one of those "codex/edition has ruined everything, I'm throwing my stuff in the bin" threads and politely suggest playing an older edition of the game that they do enjoy or what have you, but ultimately if someone is like that for real I'm not so sure they're going to get "it", whatever "it" is.
You either have your epiphany or you don't, I think.

I think the key thing bringing in new people is to let the story come to the fore. Really get them excited about the narrative that lies behind the game, and the objectives of the game. Not even convinced you need to mention the ruleset (2nd ed, 3rd ed, something completely different, who cares?) because the key is to get them excited about narrative games, not about old rules and certainly not about army lists.

"So here's the story so far, want to play? Great, bring some minis along, don't worry about army lists just bring whatever you think fits into the story and we'll work it out when we get to the table."

Count Von Bruno":2i1sgp01 said:

They are interesting questions that after much deliberation I've decided I can't really answer.

Like Erny said I think the best way to turn people onto the broad, indescribable, multi headed beast that might loosely be described as Oldhammer is to get it out there by playing the games, blogging and forums like this.
When I summon the courage to venture outside of the project logs on warseer, I sometimes chime in on one of those "codex/edition has ruined everything, I'm throwing my stuff in the bin" threads and politely suggest playing an older edition of the game that they do enjoy or what have you, but ultimately if someone is like that for real I'm not so sure they're going to get "it", whatever "it" is.
You either have your epiphany or you don't, I think.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with you here Von Bruno. The best way to expand Oldhammer is to keep doing what we do best; maintaining colourful, well written blogs full of passion, encouraging others to join our communities through word of mouth Fforum/FB etc) and getting together and putting on large narrative games in gaming stores so that the unenlightened can see for themselves what we do. I saw this first hand at Slayer Gaming the other week as our fairly low-key game attracted a fair bit of attention from the patron within (even a girl!). Codex/Ruined everything types will always be doomed to their lifecycle of endless despair, but at least we will be able to save one of two of them from themselves!

I totally agree with the things said before.
Show the people what you do and say why you do it this way. There are many people out there having different views why they dislike the newer versions.
Just show them that you can play one of the older ones and have fun.

I'd be tempted to write a retroclone of RT and take the risk with GW noticing, and more to the point, caring. Obviously if I do I'll keep it separate from this forum, I wouldn't want to bring Sauron's eye over here.

I think all you guys are doing a great job with your blogs, theres a good variety of content that's sure to appeal to people, I'm just wondering if there aren't any projects which would help give an entry point. Maybe some basic scenarios or even a D&D style beginners module to show newcomers how it's done. If we could get a list of links or a pdf as a resource to point people to that'd be great.

I think there is a small practical thing that can be done.

A key problem with modern warhammer - and I suspect with other games too - is that characters are not seen as characters (i.e. an Alexander the Great or a Rommel type of character) - they're just seen as different military assets with different capabilities that can be 'disposed' of using a points vs. battle value type of thinking. Very often, we'll see heroes cheerfully sacrifice themselves for things they couldn't possibly have known or for otherwise ridiculous reasons, which make sense on paper and at a strategic level, but no actual living creature would behave that way.

But, if you can get your players to care about their characters, then things change.

Realms of Chaos is especially good here - the idea that one can spend ages randomly generating a character and a warband to create a completely unique and special character is itself novel - to then take said character out to fight on a battle field drives different behaviours - people want their character to survive - want them to grow. They won'y sacrifice them at a suitably strategic point because they're not just another entry in a military catalogue of solutions - they're a real, living thing with an 'irrational' value to the player.

So I would suggest developing a means of creating meaningful and interesting characters. RoC already does this, but I've used WFRP to generate 'good' heroes and then used the conversion table in the WFRP book to convert them to WFB stats.

The process is interesting, rewarding and definitely helps you see your characters in a new light.

I like that idea a lot, I think some random tables spice up any game that's the D&D in me talking! I know some work has been done with this stuff in the Inquisitor 28mm circles, there's a D10000 Inquisitor Traits that Porky (over at Porky's Expanse) and some others collaborated on, I'll try find the link and post it here.

Porky has done a few good posts with new ideas for older games such as this. Check out his 40k OSR tagged stuff for more.

weazil":3k3umdn4 said:

... if you can get your players to care about their characters, then things change ...

Click to expand...

In my current campaign, everyone's ruler lord is them. Players are not their armies, they are their characters. It does make for some interesting tactical actions in battles. Some just go for it anyway - in the spirit of, say, Thomas Fairfax (sorry if my reference is too niche) - others are very cautious.

Sorry, late to the party here.

Going back to Smiler’s original question, I agree that new players can only be a good thing, although I’m not sure I share his focus on Oldhammer rulesets, I’d prefer to focus on the ethos. Although I will contradict myself further down this post…

I think the most likely source of new players is existing wargamers, who I think it’s fair to say would have some exposure to the current or at least some version of WFB / 40K.

In that context the biggest selling point would be the DIY attitude. At its most basic level this releases the player from the cycle of forced obsolescence / the whims of the sales and marketing activities of a miniature manufacturer. Hopefully it also gives priority to playing a game rather than focussing on winning, on seeing the units and heroes as characters rather than pieces on a board. Certainly when I've played recently at my local club the people I've chatted to have seen how 2nd / 3rd ed let you do the first of these and seem to like the idea.

On Smiler’s specific questions –

Why learn an old rule set – I don’t think there’s any particular reason why anyone should. I think they should use a complete ruleset, which RT / WFB 2nd (and sort of 3rd) edition are, otherwise a lot of the freedom to make up your own stuff is lost. So it should have a full selection of creature profiles, plus a framework to make up and cost your own, and a representative set of spells and magic items. In my personal view it should also allow for a wide disparity in power levels – so that your chaos warrior really has very little to fear from a goblin. Although I note that this last thing is specifically something that the designers of my 1991 edition of HOTT were trying to counter.

The obstacle to old rulesets is primarily that they’re out of print so you’re creating a barrier to entry right there, which is why I don’t think this should necessarily be the focus. Although contrary to that is it’s nice to have a lingua franca - it’s also a barrier when you find a fellow gamer who shares your gaming ethos but you don’t have a ruleset in common. Of these two problems the ruleset is the easiest to overcome though.

To slightly twist the question to me the obstacle is the last 20+ years within fantasy / sci-fi wargaming of focus on competitive play and proscribed forces rather than just making stuff up. So run scenarios where one side is clearly unmatched (Orc’s Drift’s Encounter at Ashak Rise is a fantastic example of this), or just where players have to make do with the forces at hand within the scenario rather than a finely-tuned picked army. And I just love Gaj’s suggestion of generating non-typical characters via WFRP.

As far as encouraging this sort of thing as a community, I think in many ways we’re doing a reasonable job already although I imagine the focus on old lead is somewhat off-putting. Play using cheap and/or current figures - a la Whiskey Priest; play using modern editions; enjoy yourself. Something which I imagine would be useful – although might be fraught IP-wise – would be some guides to DIY-ing modern editions, or Oldhammering a non-GW modern ruleset.

Less likely to get you sued would be to focus on smaller forces, again lowering the barrier to entry and allowing for more variety. I think it’s instructive that the scenarios I grew up with (Vengeance of the Lichemaster, Blood on the Snow, Forenrond's Last Stand) have sides in the 1000-1500 points range which have lots of advantages (as a player rather than manufacturer) over the 3000 point sides that Warhammer Armies made standard.

So, be creative, enjoy yourself, and I'm sure you'll find a steady trickle of disillusioned former GW-gamers coming your way. It will always be a niche of a niche though...

Paul / Grumdril

"Bring some mini's you don't get to use that often, and we'll put on a game using those"