"Rules Development" Topic

Hi, everyone. I have been thinking about the best waysw I could go about creating my own game for some time now. I wouldnt say I have a good knowledge of a lot of other games but these are the few that I do know reasonably well.

Warhammer – although this is mainly a regiment based game the same basic system works for Mordheim and 40k where there are smaller squads and individual characters. The game is broken down into alternating turns which are broken down into very set phases.

Lord of the Rings – this works best for small forces I think, although it can also be used for larger ones. Rather than alternating turns the turns are shared and the phases are alternated.

Heroclix – again I think this works better for small forces and although the turns alternate there are not really set phases (not like the other examples given so far anyway) but rather there are actions which can be done in any order. Also only part of your force is ever active at a time.

Dr Who Miniatures Game – this quite effectively combines aspects from the Lord of the Rings game and Heroclix. You have your turns, you activate half your force, but then have actions.

What I would like to make is a gaming system where each character has a points value. Then rather than just having a straight battle the scenarios will give army lists but then you can use so many points to add a few more bits to your force. That way each time you play it will still be fresh and also the points costs will help people wishing to make their own scenarios.

Ideally I would like to keep the game system reasonably basic but then have additional and advance rules so that people can add more depth as they see fit.

It would be character based rather than regiments too.

The problem I have is I used to play these games a lot (a lot more than I do now anyway) and when I try to make my own I tend towards stealing bits from those games, and I really dont want to.

What I was wondering is what is your favourite aspects of rules and what things do you like best. For example do you really dislike set turns, or do you like when things are very random?

Any suggestions are very appreciated.

"The problem I have is I used to play these games a lot (a lot more than I do now anyway) and when I try to make my own I tend towards stealing bits from those games, and I really dont want to."

Why not? Most of the games I have designed have started off by "nicking bits" from other games. After all, there are only so many ways of:
1. Organising the turn sequence – who does what when.
2. Regulating movement
3. Deciding if a target is hit by ranged fire and what the effect is.
4. Deciding the outcome of a close combat
5. Deciding who runs away and under what conditions.

"What I would like to make is a gaming system where each character has a points value."

I hate points systems. They imply that if the players have armies of equal strength in points then they each have a 50/50 chance of winning the battle. That's utter rubbish. Take my advice and forget the idea of using points. Stargrunt II (a very successful SF game) doesn't.

How successful is Stargrunt, anyway? Compared to other 25-ish mm SF platoon-level games? I'll grant that it's good, but that's not the same. The game is woefully incomplete on the subject of actually running a game – only one sample force list, no comments or suggestions for designing a scenario or coming up with victory conditions that are equally fun for both sides. It pretty much says "go off and design your own scenarios". Fair enough if you're a hardened gamer, but for those of us less well-versed in the art of scenario design, it makes the game a little impenetrable.

A points system may not be 'realistic' or perfectly designed, but it allows you to turn up at a gaming venue and get a game in with anyone who's there.

Yes I know some people really dislike points systems, but like I said I am putting them there to enable more variation within scenarios, not to encourage evenly matched battles. Personally I really dont mind points values and when push comes to shove I'd rather have them than not, that way if someone wants a straight battle then they have the option, if you dislike that sort of thing then ignore the points and you can happily play the games without ever using them.

The reason I want to try to avoid stealing bits from other systems is simply copyright. Personally I love the Lord of the Rings rules, I have made several sets of my own supplements for this game and would gladly carry on if not for the fact I could never hop for them to be more than fan supplements. Im not expecting to suddenly get a set of rules published, however, if I'm putting the effort into trying to make a set of rules popular I'd rather not rule out the option to publish them altogether.

That said I understand there are only so many ways of doing things, but I'll try to keep it as original as I can.

Thanks for the replies so far.

"How successful is Stargrunt, anyway? "

Just ask on the SF boards for a recommended platoon level game and you will get several people saying Stargrunt II. Besides GZG's print run of the game has sold out a while ago, which is why it is now available for free.

"The game is woefully incomplete on the subject of actually running a game"
Plenty of scenarios available here:
link

"The reason I want to try to avoid stealing bits from other systems is simply copyright."

It is the WORDS that are copyright, not the MECHANISMS. If that were true then Don Featherstone would be having a field day in court!

Provided you do not copy text verbatim from other rules and you acknowledge sources and inspiration you should be in the clear.

You know, if point systems are provided, you don't HAVE to use them. But if they are not provided, then you CANNOT use them. Point systems are never perfect, but a lot of people like to have them.

I never saw the existence of a point system in a rules set stop it from being used for a historical scenario. On the other hand, I have seen many systems in our local group fade because the guy who was setting up all the scenarios got burned out or changed interests or moved away. Curiously, the remaining players just stopped playing, rather than spending the time working out scenarios.

You broaden the appeal of your game by providing point systems. I mean, unless you are on a crusade to stomp out even point games, and limit the appeal of your rules to only those wanting to do scenarios, then you might as well do a points system. Even if it is half-assed, it's better than nothing. After all, it works for GW.

Rob

This discussion is about fantasy rules so what I'm about to say doesn't really apply, but FWIW:

I have never included points systems in my rules for historical periods, partly for the reasons I gave above but also because provided the representation and ground scale are clearly stated then anyone should be able to generate a scenario from an actual historical battle.

That said, djd585 has stated his preference and reasons for including points. I disagree with him but it's his call.

Any thoughts on specific mechanisms yet, djd?

Yep thats my thinking, I mean if I were to ever make a supplement book for example (whether published or simply online) I would include Conversion, Painting and Terrain guides. I wouldnt expect everyone to use them but its about putting as much in and hoping you can cover everyone.

I'd still be very interested to hear what you favourite aspects and styles of rules are.

Well i would start with the Lord of the Rings game and make it turn based. I would then add a much more detailed Magic phase, even though it wouldnt be used in a setting outside of Fantasy very much. Then I think I would completely rework the idea of combat. I have scribbled alsorts down for this on many occassions and never quite settled on something that feels just right but Im sure I'll get there in the end.

I would then consider adding a very simplified idea of actions where you can do one extra thing in addition to movement, magic, shooting or fighting.

What I want is a gaming system that works relatively easily. Then to make sets of rules for different games. For example you could have a Harry Potter game and a Spiderman game (just picking two very different themes there). They would both use the same basic rules, so you just need the extra book with the relevant characters, special rules, weapons, terrain rules and scenarios and all that.

That way you would have a really comfortable system and not have to learn a new set of rules each time. A little bit like what Wizkids does with their Clix games, only have it be a good game.

"Well i would start with the Lord of the Rings game and make it turn based."

Um, isn't it turn based already?

Sorry I should have been more specific, I meant at the moment both players share a turn, just each having their own half of a phase. What I meant was I would seperate it out. Player 1 moves, does magic, shoots, player 2 moves, does magic, shoots, then perhaps fit combat in the same way, or maybe still keep that as a joint phase, and also throw the idea of actions in somewhere.

I like the interactive turn sequence in Fire and Fury.

Player A moves
Player B shoots
Player A shoots
Player A resolves charges

then switch and repeat

Keeps both sides involved and makes the approach a little dangerous

I prefer alternate unit activation, or card driven unit activation.

djd585 09 May 2008 4:48 a.m. PST

What I was wondering is what is your favourite aspects of rules and what things do you like best. For example do you really dislike set turns, or do you like when things are very random?

i like games that play fast and use historical simulation. fantasy and scifi games that are based on what really works or would work are my favorite kinds of games. games that use lots of miniatures are the best and being able to hold the miniatures one at a time has always satisfied me the most. i dont like element basing for that reason. lots of dice and all kinds are fun for beer and pretzels type games. but games with lots of miniatures and terrain and movement are only cluttered up by resorting to different dice and lots of dice. so for battle scale games it is better if you keep to maybe 2d(your favorite). ymmv of course.

Ditto that. Fast play is a must. I can't stand games that get held over from one play session to the next, blah! Movement trays solve the problem of individually based minis, for those who don't like moving individual figures. And that way if you skirmish you can have it both ways: groups on a tray for big battles and single figures for smaller games. Versatility in a rules set is key I think. A rigid, abstract game that doesn't adapt to other basing systems and figure scales is a downside for any new set of rules these days, imho.

Concur that a card based movement system is the way to go. At conventions, these are very popular for home brew rules, and the reason, I think, is its more realistic and leads to more variation of outcomes, i.e., its more chaotic and that often makes a game more fun.

I would also include morale (I mean for the actions of fresh troops; not just deciding when a unit routes) and command and control. You have to be careful not to over do it, or it becomes cumbersome or limits players' ability to do what they want, but without some sort of command and control and morale test for troops a game becomes too unbelievable for my taste. Warmaster has a pretty good system for command and control that is simple and fast moving; personally I don't like the way units disintegrate so quickly in that system, but that goes with the 10mm scale.

I also really like random events if done well. These are more scenario specific, but even a general rules system can outline how random events can be included in the mix. The more elements of chaos included in the system, the more a player can point to that as the reason they lost, so everyone goes away happy.

And dont forget about allowing hidden movement and deployment in certain scenarios; keeps the players guessing.

Good luck.

Sorry if I sound a little ignorant here but what is a card based movement system? I have heard it mentioned a few times now but unless I am just knowing it by another name then I dont belieev I have ever played a game with it.

As far as morale goes then yeah I like the idea, the thing that worries me is that if you include too much of that sort of thing then it would slow the turns down and the game might start to drag, but I think a little bit of it without overdoing it could be good.

With random events I intend to make a few lists of random events for differnt situations (maybe a general list, a weather list, a fantasy, historical and futuristic list) which can then be used if the players wish. Then on top of that certain scenarios will have some random events which are there whether the players are using the other ones or not.

Again I have to be careful because too many things like this could make the turns drag a little.

Thanks for all the suggestions so far though.

The only card-based movement system I am familiar with is Broadsides and Boarding Parties (MB). It works like gangbusters. I don't see an immediate application to moving multiple units on the table top though.

That's the trick, isn't it? Achieving a balance of realism vs. playability.

Card based movement systems are simple. Each type of unit, command, race, or whatever organizational delineation you choose, has its own card. Sometimes cards can be for each leader, and then the card might refer to all the units that that particular leader commands. You have a deck of these cards (people usually use playing cards marked on the "face up" side), and you shuffle and deal them out, but one at a time. When a particular unit's card is turned up, then the controlling player moves only that unit. When the deck is exhausted, then the moves for that turn are complete. Their are usually other phases in a turn, maybe all combat is worked out at the end, or all combat except opportunity fire, then a magic phase, rally phase or whatever, but the movement is governed by a deck of cards that is shuffled at the start of each turn. This way, the order that units move does not stay the same, and you get a more realistic simulation of simultaneous movement.

'Sorry if I sound a little ignorant here but what is a card based movement system?'

IABSM uses an interesting one. Each functional unit in the game has a card, plus there is an end of turn card (and some other extras the guy demo-ing the game didnt use I think. They are shuffled together and then a turn plays as drawing a card from the deck and activating that unit. Turn ends when the end of turn card is drawn.

Interesting idea – especially with the switch from fog of war blanks to numbers of actual units tweaking how things appear.

The key thing in IABSM is that a unit gets to act either on its own card (there's obviously a 50% chance of any given card coming up before the Tea Break is drawn), or when that of a leader with the unit comes up (which will increase the chance to 75%).
It makes leadership critical, as your units are much more likely to do what you want when well led.

IABSM??? I declare Crusade on all acronyms henceforth!

Try googling instead of crusading.

Sorry forgot Id migrated out of the 2nd World War boards before I posted.

IABSM is I Aint Been Shot Mum, by the Too Fat Lardies. WWII COmpany level wargame.