“Persistence
without insight will lead to the same outcome.”
–
The Armorer from The
Mandalorian
I’ve
been reading some miniature wargaming rules, some from the 1970s and
others having been around a while that still see a good deal of play
today. I’m guilty of acquiring games of various forms –
roleplaying games, wargames (both board and miniature), even board
games – not
necessarily
to play but to read for their own sake, seeing how each uses rules
and components to craft a particular play experience based
on a setting.
Some
authors of older
rules assume an attitude that their particular
method
of playing a game is the way (at least the way for them), sometimes
looking down on or dismissing other rules concepts that don’t work
with their vision. “This is the way,” one might say, to coin a
phrase made popular by the
Star
Wars Mandalorian
series. Naturally
where one rigidly declares their rules are the best way of playing a
particular game others will rebel against it, offering an alternative
emphasizing different game aspects. Much of early gaming –
roleplaying as well as wargaming
– evolved through this reactionary give and take, with games
emerging in response to and in competition with other rules, based on
what individual designers felt worked best to provide a satisfying
game experience. Certainly games have changed over the years,
especially with the accessibility to both publishing and distribution
computers and the internet have enabled in the 21st century.
To
me it’s
interesting to see inflexibility in a play activity, though no doubt
I’ve been guilty at some point of being too rigid in my game
interpretations. I remind myself that everyone
finds satisfaction in games differently, that,
as always, your
mileage may vary. And
in many cases, as demonstrated in
The
Mandalorian’s
third season, several divergent, adversarial groups can come
together, relax their rigidity, and work toward something new.
