Bringing in new Oldhammerererererers

smiler

Member
So, continuing a tangent I may have been forcing over here -> viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3367&start=30 <- I thought I'd start a topic to discuss how to get new players into the Oldhammer rulesets.

I'm very keen on expanding the boundaries of Oldhammer. Having gotten into tabletop RPGs through the OSR (try here for the uninitiated), despite having no prior involvement or nostalgia I found the DIY attitudes and healthy disrespect for the rules and established tropes exciting and inspiring. I think the Oldhammer movement is teetering towards becoming another OSR and we should give it a hefty shove to start it rolling!

First a couple of definitions so we're all on the same page:

1. New players - I'm specifically referring to people who have no experience of any of the Oldhammer games, whether they play games with current GW rules, other companies rules or have never played a wargame in their lives. For these people nostalgia for the rules or models don't factor in (which I suspect they do for a majority of us here), they also have no existing knowledge of the Oldhammer rulesets.

2. Oldhammer Rulesets - I think (and hope) everyone would agree that WFB up to 3rd edtion and RT/2nd ed 40k are Oldhammer (I know - looking at no one in particular :razz: Zhu - that some people think army lists aren't Oldhammer but I think it's concievable to play these games without). I would also consider all the Specialist Games Oldhammer, though maybe there is some disagreement there, let me know guys and gals.

So assuming we agree with these definitions the main questions to answer are:

1. Why should a new player get into Oldhammer? Specifically, why should they bother to learn an old set of rules instead of playing Infinity, Dust Tactics, Malifaux or any one of the clean polished modern games available today.

2. What obstacles are there for someone who is interested playing games using Oldhammer rulesets?

3. What can we, as a community, do to encourage involvement? How can we break down the barriers to entry?

Obviously I have some ideas and opinions on these questions but this post is getting long enough :) lets here what other people think!
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
The playstyle inferred from Rogue Trader and the playstyle inferred from 2nd Ed are completely different. Why is 2nd Ed. 40k now considered "Oldhammer" and 3rd ed. not?

Personally I draw the line at 1991 - "Oldhammer" = Ansell era Warhammer, simple.
 

smiler

Member
:) I wondered if that would cause a fuss. I include it because I started with 2nd ed when I was a wee nipper (ah nostalgia!), the tone of the books and White Dwarf were still very much about DIY and fun instead of balance and competition and because the rules are available for free without having to resort to becoming a filthy freebooting pirate! The 2nd ed Battle Bible is pretty basic but it's free and contains the basic rules.

3rd edition was a (I believe) concious move towards a balanced and competitive game, I think it'd be hard to argue 2nd edition ever had that attitude.

Any other issues with the definitions as laid out?
 

runequester

Member
2nd edition is compatible with Rogue Trader, whereas 3rd onwards is not. Most of the changes made to Rogue Trader over it's lifespan essentially were just what would become the 2nd edition rules.

Likewise, the switch to giant armies, no terrain, crowded deployment zones, herohammer, lack of tactical options and close combat uber alles happened in 3rd.


In any event, I think the easiest way to get people in is to set up a situation where they have no reason to say no.
Set up a small scenario, let them know it'll be a bit more like an RPG and that it'll use an older version of Warhammer/40K. Then have them show up and play.

Don't make it contingent initially that they have to buy into it or go out and get brand new/old mini's.
 

Golgfag1

Moderator
Sorry, still not sure where you're running with this, but I'm pretty much willing to give anything a try - so am wiling to play virtually any edition you care to mention ( I started with 2ed, dropped out with third and jump back- in with 6th or was that fifth!), your ideas for introducing the idea of oldhammer to new player is - to tell people to play old editions of Warhammer, and?

I thought the general idea was to get players out of the win at all costs mentality - by introducing them to games where they have to think (using any edition of the rules they feel comfortable with) - about how their playing the game and have fun whilst doing so? :grin:

In hope

Paul / Golgfag1
(attempting to have fun, where & when ever possible - play up, play up & play the game) :lol: :lol: :lol: :
 

smiler

Member
The specific ruleset is less important than the playing for fun, but the compatability of the rulesets I've defined as Oldhammer means that something created for one game can be easily used for something else. Going back to the OSR (sorry to keep harping on), it's the fact that all the rulesets before AD&D 2nd ed are very similar that keeps the community together.
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
There's a massive difference between Rogue Trader that says "Hey, if you want to create your own thing, here's some guidelines" and 40k2E which says "If you want to improvise your own thing, you're on your own, besides most people will be happy with the stats and we provide for the miniatures we sell, which by the way, you'll need to buy an extra catalogue / army-list to find out what they are" The rules might appear compatible, but there is no question that the attitude and intention they are written in is very different.

It's like the difference between some IKEA instructions and a woodworking manual - and indeed that's pretty much the same case I made in Oldhammer contract back in 2011.

As for attracting more people - showing what can be done, introducing people to the playstyle by demonstration as Golfag suggests. But really, if W40K2E why not just roleplay/skrimish a current edition? they're not that different.
 

runequester

Member
Zhu Bajie":38llry7l said:
There's a massive difference between Rogue Trader that says "Hey, if you want to create your own thing, here's some guidelines" and 40k2E which says "If you want to improvise your own thing, you're on your own, besides most people will be happy with the stats and we provide for the miniatures we sell, which by the way, you'll need to buy an extra catalogue / army-list to find out what they are" The rules might appear compatible, but there is no question that the attitude and intention they are written in is very different.

The same rogue trader where every single supplement is full of army lists? Where mini's that were not in the rules stopped being made?

The "RPG Rogue Trader" existed in the main book and every thing published since then was not in support of that. Open up the Compendium, Compilation, Vehicle manual, Battle manual. Tell me what you find in there.

Those army lists were written because that's what people wanted at the time. We've gone back retro-actively and rediscovered this style of play which is great. But let's be honest about the nature of the games that were being played at the time.



As for attracting more people - showing what can be done, introducing people to the playstyle by demonstration as Golfag suggests. But really, if W40K2E why not just roleplay/skrimish a current edition? they're not that different.

Why 40K2? Because it's a better game than what came later. You can skirmish with 7th but it'd be like buying a moped to impress girls. You might get lucky but it won't be what you wanted it to be.

And like I said, it's rules compatible with Rogue Trader in any event. I can play 2nd edition and use a Sensei warband and I can play Rogue Trader and put in some Necrons. In either event, I need essentially zero conversion work.



edit: and in case it needs to be said, Oldhammer is SERIOUS BUSINESS :)
 

smiler

Member
Except you don't have to buy anything to play 2nd edition, it's not 1994 anymore, the Battle Bible has everything you need. If people want to play narrative games with 7th ed that's fine with me too, it's the attitude that matters, not the rules. The only advantage to sticking with the early rulesets is that they're all compatable, and much of that compatability is because RT eventually became 2nd ed through the later supplements.

You can (and I have) approach 2nd ed as a toolbox for narrative story telling without any issue, I don't see anything in the RT rulebook (in regards to actual rules) which makes it better for narrative games. Except maybe the bestary :) although with a quick flick through any of the D&D monster books you could stat up a million creepy aliens.

To answer my own question about attracting new players I think a clear and free rulebook is the key to getting new people to look at the RT rules. The free retroclones of D&D show a variety of styles that can entice people in.

And SERIOUS BUSINESS indeed :)
 
runequester":33b5w9nn said:
You can skirmish with 7th but it'd be like buying a moped to impress girls. You might get lucky but it won't be what you wanted it to be.

Hey, don't knock it, it worked for me when I was 15. :lol:
 
From where I'm standing there is a massive gulf between what Rogue Trader could be and what 2nd edition and it's descendents came to be. 40k started to morph almost straight away, and I understand your argument about all the supplementary material that was published but with hindsight, it is these supplements that led to the line em' up and bash em' down of 2nd edition +.

They were not corrections - they were additions.

They were in the same vein as warhammer, they made 40k a massive success as a tabletop battle game. If I wanted to follow that development I'd simply be repeating history. Whats the point in that?

I'd rather rip a hole in the world and step through into an alternative universe where every game requires a story, a GM, a few characterful minis, a curry and some beer. Every body has fun and nobody ever used maths to figure out the odds of their figures making their points back. Cos that's just sad.
 

runequester

Member
dieselmonkey":1kaildde said:
runequester":1kaildde said:
You can skirmish with 7th but it'd be like buying a moped to impress girls. You might get lucky but it won't be what you wanted it to be.

Hey, don't knock it, it worked for me when I was 15. :lol:

Wait, the moped or 7th edition? :grin:
 

runequester

Member
This also really brings up other questions. What about things like Blood Bowl? Confrontation? Necromunda? Space Marine?

Space Marine 1st edition co-existed with Rogue Trader but it assumed army lists right out of the gate (along with scenarios presented). Most people would say that Space Marine is absolutely old school but it doesn't fit the "GM" definition.

2nd edition blood bowl falls into the same category of course.
 
The Reverend Whiskey started an inclusivity drive a while back that was picked up by some with enthusiasm - mainly to do with using models that weren't necessarily 'Oldhammer', but cheap and easy to come across, and the idea was to create two units of 10 models, with one hero. The thread is here for those of you who haven't seen it.

In vaguely related news, I was planning to post some Man 'o War stuff at some point :grin:
 

runequester

Member
There's a guy out there who runs games using Necromunda rules but whatever characters they think up, Rogue Trader style. Always looked super tempting. Incidentally we did something similar way back in the day but never that consistently.
 

A Badger

Member
In essence, a 'retro(spective) hobby' is just that - you kinda have to have something to look back on, ergo the vast majority of people interested in it will have been there at the time - and like most 'middle age' hobbies, involves a bit of reliving your youth & collecting the bits and bobs you wanted when you were young and could not afford.

I know people will be attracted to the 'old school' who may not have lived through it, but these will be a rarity (not chicken dragon rare I admit) and will have happened upon an obscure hobby through a combination of other similar interests. There is limited scope for proselytizing this type of niche interest imo.
 

Erny

Member
A bunch of us started blogging about the games we used to play as kids, the way we used to play them and importantly for me but less so for others the miniatures we used to collect. The fact we were all talking about the same things, signing up to find opponents, discussing the making of an OGL version of warhammer and generally becoming friends ment we bagan realising we were a comunity. It was only natural we took a name for ourselves and Zhu's Oldhammer contract fitted the bill. Now some of us may not have signed up to only Zhus contract or for some of us all of the contract but it is what we chose to define ourselves. Broadly agreeing with the points in the contract is I'd imagine the definition of an oldhammerer, least ways it was when we coined the term.

As this is a comunity of people just doing the thing we do, mainly only because we are revisiting the way we used to do things and trying to build on it,it seams a bit daft to try to insist that a different definition is the one to go for. We are very laid back here, if your definition is diffrent, cool, just be aware that the original community wasn't that. But do your thing for sure, we'd love to see it.

We had noticed the OSR in ASD&D many of us were and are enjoying it, some even contributing to it. As I said above we even started down the lines of making BLOOD our own OGL of warhammer but really we were lacking enough entusiasim. So yes it is something we explored it is something we understand and in some ways it is a differeent thing. GW is very jealous of it's IP and have no OGL, it makes things difficult. Equally there is nmo such thing as a freely available legal 2nd ed 40k. The Battle Bible is probably just below the GW radar at the moment but we shouldn't associate oursleves with stilen IP on these forums.

As to recriuiting new members our existing methods are pretty good I'd say. Blog and play games. We've gone from 10-20 bloggers to between 500-1000 interested poeple, a solid say 30-50 regular bloggers, local groups that meet up, several national oldhammer days (weekends) and many more people getting to play the games they enjoy.
 

runequester

Member
The problem of making an actual retro clone is two fold:

1: You cannot copyright game mechanics only specific expressions. In theory, you could rewrite all of a game in your own words and you'd be okay. That won't stop the weight of lawyers bearing down on you though because the legal system always favours the one with bigger pockets. This has nothing to do with a specific edition, it's just plain fact.

People have written retroclones of a number of old RPGs, but mostly those originated from companies that either no longer exist or are not known for sending layers after fan pages.

2: What WOTC did was explicitly make a long list of game and setting terms available to use for free under the OGL. This, more than anything, helped spawn the retro clones and later, the wave of games inspired and based on, but different in a lot of ways.
We have nothing of the sort and never will.


this puts any project in a pretty precarious position unless the aim is simply to make a brand new game in the spirit of [insert edition of game here].
 
Oldhammer is by definition about the past, not the future, of gaming.

There are some vibrant companies out there doing new things, who I hope will succeed. So far I have not seen any ruleset that I like more than Warhammer or Laserburn/Confrontation, but that is just my taste, and I havent sampled all the alternatives by a long stretch.

Plus my past investment of time and energy into Warhammer gives a strong bias in favour of continuing with it.
 
Back
Top