Looking at the reviews of my PORTABLE WARGAME and DEVELOPING THE PORTABLE WARGAME books on Amazon, I discovered that almost all the reviews gave my books three stars or better. No bad, I thought … and then I saw that one reviewer had given them a one-star rating … so I read their review. This is what it said:

I bought the pair of books at the same time after they had good reviews. Upon reading them I found the rules to be overly simplified and too generic to be of interest. The book goes into great detail as to why he chose the rules and is really just extra padding to the book that should really have been a couple of sheets of A4 given out free in a magazine.

At first I was very disappointed … and then I thought about what the reviewer had written.

The rules were criticised for being ‘overly simple and too generic‘ and yet the blurb about the rules on Amazon states that ‘The Portable Wargame has been developed over the past ten years to meet the needs of wargamers who want a fast, easy to learn, simple to use set of wargames rules.’ Is it me, or are the rules being criticised for doing what they were designed to do?

Now I know that not everyone wants to understand the thinking that the rule writer has gone through when writing a set of rules, but I know that some do, which is why I included it. It isn’t ‘extra padding‘; it serves a purpose … and from the feedback I have had, a lot of users have found that it has helped them to a better understanding of the rules and enabled them to develop their own versions.

When I first read this review, my heart sank. I am a realist and didn’t expect everyone to rate my books as five-star, (that would have been nice, but …) but to rate it as only worth one-star really felt like a kick in the guts. Then I re-read the review, and thought about what had been written … and realised that at no point did the review state anything along the lines of ‘I’ve fought several tabletop battles with these rules and …‘. I came to the conclusion that the reviewer had looked through the books, decided that the rules were not for him, and had chosen to write a review that reflected that. An honest opinion, written in these circumstances, is perfectly valid, even if it seems a bit harsh.

My actor friend was right; I should never read any reviews of work I have done … but it is very difficult not to!

Interestingly, the same reviewer wrote the following about Neil Thomas’s ONE-HOUR WARGAMES (which they gave four-stars!):

I was a little disappointed with this book. The rules for the different areas are basically the same, and come down to roll a single dice and do that much damage to the enemy unit with each unit taking 15 damage before leaving the battle. The best part of the book that saves it are the 30 scenarios that are included.

After spending more time with this book you begin to see that the differences between the different rules make the required feel for the era but keep the same core mechanics. It is possible to play several battles in different eras during an evening.