The Bryan Ansell Interview Feb/2013

[Daedalus]

Now check out this Brian Ansell interview excerpt from realmofchaos80s.blogspot

RoC80s/CC: In broader terms, can you recall examples of other cancelled projects that never saw the light of day during your time at Games Workshop?

BA: We talked about many things that we never actually got round to. Loads of things. I think that any manufacturer of anything must inevitably do that. At the point that I left Games Workshop, work had started on a fourth game for MB. It was a chariot racing game. It never came out. I gather that models were made: so there are probably bootleg castings out in the world somewhere.. . .

I'd guess the game was based in the Warhammer Old World, as chariots were already a thing in Fantasy Battles. I wonder if Stephen Baker was involved in that one. I'd like to think the mystery game used combat dice like HQ and Battle Masters (and Heroscape, for that matter.)

[lestodante]

I am sure I posted this before, maybe in another topic.
On August 13, 2014

Stephen Baker, Roger Ford, and Ben Rathbone had damn all to do with HQ's developement. SB had produced a poor derivative of D&D. GW had to be called in to perform a rescue mission and deliver an actual game. We did that: we were paid for delivering an actual game that actually worked. We used nothing from the SB version. Stephen Baker managed one of our shops. I have no idea who Ford and Rathbone are.

We always sculpted models in an open, casual, questing and experimental way: we were always looking for a better way forwards. That's all there is to it: we always did our absolute best in the time available. Moving forward fast and fearless always gives the best results. We never gave a toss about the thickness of a sword or any other petty detail: we just wanted every part of what we did to look as good as we could manage in the time that was available.

taken from: http://eldritchepistles.blogspot.com/20 ... mment-form
(please note "Bryan Ansell" name was deleted a couple of years ago and replaced with an "unknown" generic nickname)

[Kurgan]

A shocking conspiracy within the HeroQuest world? More data please... !

[Pancho]

I am sure I posted this before, maybe in another topic.
On August 13, 2014

Stephen Baker, Roger Ford, and Ben Rathbone had damn all to do with HQ's developement. SB had produced a poor derivative of D&D. GW had to be called in to perform a rescue mission and deliver an actual game. We did that: we were paid for delivering an actual game that actually worked. We used nothing from the SB version. Stephen Baker managed one of our shops. I have no idea who Ford and Rathbone are.

We always sculpted models in an open, casual, questing and experimental way: we were always looking for a better way forwards. That's all there is to it: we always did our absolute best in the time available. Moving forward fast and fearless always gives the best results. We never gave a toss about the thickness of a sword or any other petty detail: we just wanted every part of what we did to look as good as we could manage in the time that was available.

taken from: http://eldritchepistles.blogspot.com/20 ... mment-form
(please note "Bryan Ansell" name was deleted a couple of years ago and replaced with an "unknown" generic nickname)

Wow that is an incredible post.
For what it’s worth I think this is probably true. Heroquest oozes “Games Workshop” from the late 80’s and 90’s. It’s a GW game down to its very fingertips.
Where Stephen Baker fits into that is open to debate. He obviously had a very big part to play, but then he had just arrived from Games Workshop anyway, bringing all those influences with him. We’ll see what Baker and others can come up with now that there is a new edition with no input from Games Workshop. I think some people are going to be a bit shocked to see how bad the new Heroquest really is, when shorn of the world in which it was set.

[j_dean80]

My guess is Stephen Baker came up with the original idea with overcomplicated rules and a messy world location. GW stepped in with a red pen and sliced through it and made it work. Both parties despised what the opposite did, but both parties had a role in it.

[Kurgan]

I'd love to know more of that raw history. I went back and read the posts from 2014 (think I got them all) about the early miniatures and the blog post from Bryan Ansell. I'm not saying I want to know all the gory details of some juicy backstage drama (the whole "split"). Companies work together and then they stop for a variety of reasons. Some of it is relevant to the development of the game we love and some of it is more curiosity. I realize things are not always as they seem...

I understand for example in the world of movies... many interviews and commentaries you hear (such as on a DVD) are scripted fluff... everybody wants to make it sound like they were one big happy family (like the opposite of a reality tv show where everybody is constantly fighting and backstabbing). Every director is a visionary, and the cast all got along and everything turned out for the best, but its hype, really they don't want to go into all the problems they really had. Sometimes you see that, but rarely. I guess they figure all that drama will hurt the brand, or the possibility of reconciliation between parties later. Some of it could be rose colored glasses though. Makes me think of how certain celeb actors will bash their early work and then later come back to work on a remake of it (they needed the money? their attitude changed? or were they just bashing it before so people would focus on their "latest work" instead?). In any case...

It sounds as if they're trying to say Stephen Baker came up with the game and they pretty much threw his game away and made a different one, but retained his credit for the idea (the rest being speculation about which parts, if any, of his were retained beyond the concept of a group of heroes crawling a dungeon like a simplified tabletop fantasy rpg). That certainly changes the whole perception that Stephen Baker is responsible directly for the game we have today (in whatever region). Obviously it was a collaborative effort, but without accusing anyone of lying without proof, I'd like to know more, surely others would too. It seems behind it is an ideological fight to say who is "really" the heart and soul of the game, who made the biggest contribution. I'm not trying to take sides in some war like that, but I'd like to know the truth, so far as it can be known.

I joked earlier about Mr. Baker not being able to speak freely because of contractual agreements with Hasbro for the remake, but surely such restraints weren't in place for the past interviews (translated though they might be). So is what he said reliable or only part of the story?


I'm also puzzled by the vagueness of terms. While I didn't grow up playing D&D like so many here, I think I know what Dungeons and Dragons is, pretty much (or what it was in those days). So Hero Quest was a port of D&D... but then it was changed to be less D&D and then changed to be more D&D, and now it's changed to be even more D&D. But what do people mean when they say that? I understand D&D "came out first" (before HQ; and everybody knows that D&D's lore is obviously inspired by earlier works like LOTR) so it gets compared to everything but some of the comparisons really need more explanation.

The differences between the EU and NA version are many and subtle, but having two types of searches vs. three makes a game "more D&D?" Using terms like "the player's piece is eliminated" vs "the Hero is killed" in the rule book makes a game "more D&D"?

Or is the term "D&D" here being used generically to refer to "fantasy Role Playing game" as opposed to "fantasy themed board game" (and what's the difference)? Or is the term "D&D" being used as a generic term for "bad" (D&D is bad in the mind of the writer?).

Help a poor noob understand "well its less D&D and more Warhammer" and other such things. When I hear "Warhammer" I think of the wargame and there's the RPG, but mainly I think of the lore (races, places, terms). In game terms what does that mean that it's more or less Warhammer? It seems that HQ is a totally different type of game. If you want Warhammer HeroQuest, there's Warhammer Quest, which has the optional rules to make it more RPG, right?

D&D to me was a pencil & paper RPG, yes, that could also use miniatures, and had a bunch of odd dice, dialogue with the characters and lots of stats and complicated interactions. Yes, things like Dragon Strike do exist (directly in response to the popularity of HQ), so if you want a "D&D Hero Quest" that would be it.

I guess people will debate about "what makes HeroQuest so great" (obviously the broodsword, the muscularity, and the beard), but the history should be something that can be investigated. Doesn't change what we have, but people will debate regarding the Remake, if it has all the right ingredients. Most people don't focus on who directed a movie, much less who did the most to create the board game they enjoy, in the end, and if they do, its much easier to assign one person as the creator as opposed to the complex collaborative process that surely is behind most big projects.

[Kurgan]

My guess is Stephen Baker came up with the original idea with overcomplicated rules and a messy world location. GW stepped in with a red pen and sliced through it and made it work. Both parties despised what the opposite did, but both parties had a role in it.

That seems like a reasonable summation from the few details we're given. A first draft is still a first draft, not the final product.

[Cael Darkhollow]

I think there is some rose colored nostalgia mixed with some exaggerated or false claims on both sides here.

I believe Stephen Baker did come up with the game screen and basic concept of one player controlling the monsters and dungeon set up while the heroes play cooperative style exploration for MB, borrowed directly from true RPGs such as D&D and Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, basically a simplified version of dungeon crawling scenarios popular in the early days of D&D. D&D evolved to encompass many unique styles of play and whole worlds as environs later, a system to turn a theater of the mind without boundaries into gameplay, originally it was literally dungeon crawling/treasure seeking in a labyrinth, only much more complex in its rules, stats and possibilities than a board game. (Gygax and Arneson created all that, Baker didn't.)

I believe he came up with the innovative folding board design of HQ with blank dungeon map which can be set up in any configuration with tiles and furniture making unlimited unique quests possible. He did turn an RPG into a boardgame. Truly remarkable.
I believe he wrote the basic storyline in the rules booklet and the questbook intros. He certainly had a hand in the game mechanics such as cards and movement rules.

But I also believe that Games Workshop was heavily involved in all the development of HQ including rules, storyline editing and refinement, setting, and all of the visual design including all physical aspects of the game such as furniture, figurines, artwork, and aesthetics. The overall game is very much consistent with GamesWorkshop style of the period and is clearly their product, not necessarily MBs based on comparisons with any other games released prior by either company. MB did board games and GW did fantasy gaming; HQ is an amalgamation of both, hence the collaboration.

I believe Baker/MB did the original conceptual design, basic writing and conceptual boardgame mechanics while GamesWorkshop brought it to life physically and did the actual design, production, rules testing, manufacturing, and all the artwork.
MB can be credited with board game concept development and distribution to a broader market than just the hobby gaming shop community, while GamesWorkshop can be credited with turning concept into product and the actual development of the game itself. I think we can ascertain and give credit where it is due.

Baker himself stated that GW developers met with MB several times, they obviously weren't passive observers just signing off on his ideas and cashing royalty checks for IP use, instead they were active collaborators with an equal or probably greater part in the actual development of HeroQuest and Battlemasters.

On the other hand, Bryan Ansell was a well known hothead full of hubris who wasn't well liked even within his own company, so exaggerated statements on his part aren't a shocker either though.

If we look at some other MB games that Baker worked on his style, imput and true influence becomes clear. He is a boardgame developer not a world creator or story author.
He can pastiche the worlds of others effectively IF he has the world and basic story to use.

Battlemasters took the Old World setting and army against army pitted battle of Warhammer Fantasy Battle and combined it with the strategy war game hex grid, while providing the simplified randomization of a board game via draw deck cards vastly streamlining and simplifying play of much more complex troop movement rules and combat tactics. He turned complex and time consuming tabletop wargaming and strategy simulations into an easy to understand and fun to play board game for kids. Brilliant.

Heroscape, Battlemasters spiritual successor was stripped of the fantasy world setting of GW while retaining the hex grid of BM, but actually became more Warhammer-like in the aspect of modularization of armies into collectible units and individual figures not limited to a single boxed set, emphasizing collectability and customization rather than any further development of more complex game play.

DarkWorld is a HQ clone and derivative of it's basic style of play which in turn was a derivative and simplified version of D&D; but DarkWorld lacks the blank map page allowing the infinite quest (but limited to the board itself) possibilities of a pseudo-RPG, it is a true boardgame with linear game play. It is a board game in totality not an entire game system like HeroQuest is. The game combat and movement mechanics are so simplified that heroes and monsters are not differentiated from each other in any meaningful way making the game rather droll. The aesthetic is clearly a direct homage to GamesWorkshop style especially the figures. While the concept of boardgaming through a 3d dungeon environs to reach the objective, the miniatures and boardgame parts are all beautiful, the game itself falls flat without a rich background world and story emersion, and over-simplified game linear pawn play instead of RPG style progression and actual character development.

DW is a boardgame masquerading as an illusion of an RPG while HQ is the most basic distillation of an RPG. HeroQuest players can go anywhere on the board at any time, while in DarkWorld why would they? The linear forward progession for a win is clear, the objective of the game is different: do we win the game vs. do we progress the storyline and make our characters more rich and powerful?
There almost certainly isn't any fan websites for DarkWorld and never will be, any more than Sorry, Hungry Hippos, checkers or Uno didn't develop their own fan communities either.

I think Ansell's statement rings very true if the prototype HQ was anything like DarkWorld, the boardgame needed a world setting to spark imagination AND open ended blank maps to work as a believable complete game system not just a boardgame.

J. R. R. Tolkien invented the Fantasy genre from myths and legends,
Robert E. Howard (and others) created adventuring narrative,
Gary Gygax (with initial involvement with Dave Arneson) invented the role playing game to utilize the fantasy genre and adventuring narrative as a game for entertainment ,
Stephen Baker figured out how to simplify it to its basic essence to play the complex RPG as a boardgame,
and Games Workshop gave us the gritty world, look and feel of HeroQuest that was essential and made it so much fun to play.

[Cael Darkhollow]

Now check out this Brian Ansell interview excerpt from realmofchaos80s.blogspot

RoC80s/CC: In broader terms, can you recall examples of other cancelled projects that never saw the light of day during your time at Games Workshop?

BA: We talked about many things that we never actually got round to. Loads of things. I think that any manufacturer of anything must inevitably do that. At the point that I left Games Workshop, work had started on a fourth game for MB. It was a chariot racing game. It never came out. I gather that models were made: so there are probably bootleg castings out in the world somewhere.. . .

I'd guess the game was based in the Warhammer Old World, as chariots were already a thing in Fantasy Battles. I wonder if Stephen Baker was involved in that one. I'd like to think the mystery game used combat dice like HQ and Battle Masters (and Heroscape, for that matter.)

Warhammer Historical based on real world armies of antiquity is a better fit than Warhammer fantasy for a chariot based boardgame. While some armies in Fantasy Battle had chariots, it doesn't fit the battle style of many armies. Empire, Bretonnia or Dwarfs for example had no chariot models ever released, while Chaos Warriors, Undead, High Elves, Goblins & Orcs did. WH Ancient Battles however nearly all armies included chariots.

[Daedalus]

Unless the models ever surface, I guess we'll never know. Warhammer Historical would have made a beautiful game.

I speculate Warhammer Fantasy as it fits the board-games-for-boys market MB/Hasbro was aiming at in this line. There were already several familiar choices available from HQ and BM to satisfy boys uninitiated to the ways of tabletop wargaming in Warhammer. Several is enough for a board game.

Given the talent pool at GW, entirely new chariots--such as an Empire version--also could have been create if desired, As Stephen Baker mentioned in the Kaos interview, MB ran focus groups of boys to figure out their particular tastes.

Well, Warhammer Fantasy chariots would have been the game I wanted, anyway.