There was a time when you did not “build a list”. You turned up, someone at the head of the table set the scene, and the battle unfolded.
Halfway through the day, a storm rolled in. Cannon lost effectiveness. Cavalry bogged down. Infantry slogged through mud. You adapted.
No points. No balance patch. Just judgment.
Early historical games and the first wave of fantasy crossovers assumed something many players now struggle with: an umpire and a scenario. You declared intent rather than measuring movement to the millimetre. You tried things. Sometimes they worked. Sometimes they went wrong in spectacular fashion.
Powered by RedCircle
Off the back of his epic two-part chat with Rick Priestley, Jason continues the narrative gaming thread with Gerry of OnTableTop/Beasts of War fame.
Warlord Games attempted to recapture that spirit with the first edition of Black Powder. No points values, just command rules and scenario play. Over time, points filtered back in because players demanded them. Many now find it difficult to play without a number telling them the game is fair before it begins.
That obsession with balance has reshaped the hobby. Tournament culture rewards predictability. Net lists circulate online. Optimised builds become standard. Players arrive already knowing what the “correct” army looks like. Surprise becomes an inconvenience rather than a thrill.
Historical gaming has not escaped it either. Systems such as the DBX family formalised army structures decades ago. Twelve elements a side. Prescribed ratios. Terrain determined in a controlled way. It creates parity, but it also flattens the unpredictability that defined the periods being represented. No one told the Mongols to rein it in for fairness.
Commercial reality plays its part. Games Workshop moved from broad hobby coverage to a tightly controlled ecosystem of its own products. Points systems standardise play and support organised events. They also make purchasing decisions clearer and repeatable. It is effective business. It narrows the lens through which many people first encounter the hobby.
The counter movement is not new. It is a rediscovery. Joe McCullough with Frostgrave and Oathmark leans heavily into narrative. Your warband grows. Your kingdom develops from the land you claim. Identity flows from story rather than a faction badge.
Moonstone goes further. Small model counts. Named characters. Rules freely available. The emphasis sits squarely on personality and evolving lore rather than efficiency.
The common thread is not the rule set. It’s attitude.
A good umpire or GM treats the table like a director treats a cast. Set the situation. Let the players act. Adapt when they go off script. Campaign play magnifies this. Commit too much force and lose it, and it stays lost. Your next game is shaped by that decision. Consequences generate tension far more effectively than a perfectly balanced 2,000-point reset.
Even historical refights benefit from this approach. Add character quirks drawn from film or memoir. Give officers a once-per-game ability tied to their personality. Let cavalry ignore the neat retreat clause if blood is up and history suggests they would. A little looseness often produces far more memorable moments than strict adherence.
Somewhere along the line, hobby time became serious time. Cost debates. Meta-analysis. Optimisation. Yet we are still pushing toy soldiers around a table. The value lies in the enjoyment and the stories that emerge, not the precision of the spreadsheet.
If you want to feel that older energy again, try removing the safety net. Run a scenario without points. Use an umpire. Allow imbalance. Accept uncertainty.
You may find the game breathes more easily without the numbers dictating every decision.