"Do game mechanics really matter?" Topic

On a recent thread, in which people were expressing their disapproval over using one core game system for different periods, somebody wrote:

"There is a difference between a hand axe and a cannon, and no it is not the number of dice you roll for a hit or for damage. You cant just go hand axe range 6 inches, damage 1d6. Nuke range 36 inches damage 6d6"

It got me to thinking… What, really, is the difference in game terms? After all, whether we're gaming ICBMS or a fist-fight, we're ultimately doing the same thing: rolling a die or some dice, perhaps modifiying it for something, and then hoping for a certain result.

Are there really particular dice mechanics – or even game mechanics, for that matter – that "taste" like one period, or belong in one period, but not another?

Then you've got the whole sub-culture (well, I guess wargaming is a sub-culture, so these guys are a sub-sub-culture), who hate saving throws. From that same thread, two people snorted their contempt for saving throws, and I've seen similar sentiments expressed for years.

I've never figured that one out, either. Would they not object if we simply called it something else? I mean, is there something uniquely horrible about the concept of you rolling a die, and then if you score X, I roll a die, trying to score Y?

Does that particular game mechanic "belong" only in certain kinds of games?

Personally, I can't imagine any particular dice mechanic or game mechanic that is uniquely suited to one subject- or period- of wargaming.

I agree with you in general. At some point dice are a measure of relative effectiveness and luck. So a small wimpy weapon – whether a butter knife or a hydrogen bomb depending on your genre – gets a D4 while a big, nasty , manly weapon (Claymore, Kill-O-Zap Gun Battery, whatever) gets a bucket o'dice.

As for the example, as long as you don't expect one weapon list to cover all eras, then I think the difference between one weapon and another is just the number of dice you roll. You just can't mix lances and las-guns in the same game.

On saving throws the argument I've heard is that it slows the game down requiring two die rolls to what one could do. So for my Steel Crush I let them have it either way – you can hit/penetrate or just roll a straight percentage chance. Mathematically the same.

Personally I don't like using core game systems for multiple periods. I have a set of rules for Ancients, a different set for Napoleonics, a different set for ACW, a different one for Colonial and the same goes for WW1, WW2, modern, fantasy and sci-fi. All are from different rules writers. It makes it harder in that you have to remember multiple rule sets, but I'm happy with that.

I do strongly feel (and as I say, this is just my opinion), that bucket of dice games are horrid! I loathe them with a passion! Make me roll one (max 2) dice of any demonination and that's it. I hate saving throws. If the rules say I kill on 5 or 6 on a D6, then that's it. No saving throws (those whould have been factored into the required to kill stats). I feel lots of dice detract from the game in that I want to play (not roll dice) and there is often the feeling that the more dice that are rolled, the more the game is left to chance other than skill or expertise.

There is only a finite set of possible game mechanics we have available, the can be combined in a fairly large number of ways however.

'Throwing a dice' isn't a game mechanic, it is way of randomising results. The difference in varous game mechanics is whether it captures period flavour or not – which is why the AHGC Classic game series were ultimately a bit bland, the same move/zoc/crt mechanics for everything from Waterloo to D-Day???

"…there is often the feeling that the more dice that are rolled, the more the game is left to chance other than skill or expertise."

But we all know it is just the opposite, that is, the luck factor is reduced by increasing the number of dice rolled, unless one is playing a game of pure skill, wherein there is no random factor at all, as in (e.g.) chess.

I pretty much agree Mr. Mango. For example, GW's Lord of the Rings mechanics have transferred very successfully into the American West and work well in pretty much any setting where you want heroes and grunts. I wouldn't want to play the same rules for everything, simply because it's fun to experiment with new mechanics. As for buckets of dice, I think this type of mechanic has become synonymous with low brow games so some gamers claim to despise games that use lots of dice to show how jolly clever they are. Frankly it can be quite fun to roll a bunch of dice.

If you've got a set of rules for poking someone with a stick, rules for walking along the ground and rules for attacking with a ranged weapon (be it rock or plasma cannon), you can use those rules for pretty much any setting. You might need to tweak the rules to reflect a block of soldiers marching in formation vs a single Indian in a forest, or massed musket fire as opposed to one man with a bow, or whatever, but the basic mechanics are pretty universal.

As for saves, I don't mind them. Some games give saves for armour, some just increase Defence/Toughness.

Andy Chambers' rationale for them, once upon a time, was that the player whos model is gettin shot has the last die roll to affect them, and thus feels like a last-minute reprive, but I've played games where the sequence goes hit-save-wound, and it doesn't matter.

re: saving throws.
i would classify them generically as any secondary randomization. the benefit to design is that they allow the inclusion of outlier possibilities without assigning them too-high a probability: a touch of spice is necessary, i think, for a good game --too much (or none at all) just doesn't taste right.

as far as generic/multi-applicable mechanics:
they're just tools to allow the players to direct troops and tell us what happened --how and to what degree that takes place is a matter of personal taste, and could therefore work (or not) in any genre.

As long as the math works out the same, I like fewer rolls for larger games, as it speeds things up. For smaller skirmish games, more rolls (I think) can add greater texture to the game if they actually represent interesting and useful battlefield phenomena. For instance, in larger game, I like to keep reaction tests simple (do they shoot or don't they?), but in smaller games it can be fun to model more detail into the mix (Cpl. Steve will need to spend the next d6 rounds changing his kit, as he failed his dry-pants test when he caught sight of the demonic alien horde coming down the road). So I guess for me it is a matter of what I am trying to accomplish, rather than how many dice I like to roll.

Jason

I heartily agree with Runs with Scissors – buckets of dice can be very enjoyable sometimes. Not always, but sometimes it is just the ticket. Ditto for opposed rolls.

So the short answer is no. Game mechanics are not important…at least from a technical aspect. Only probability and how it is used is important. You could, for instance, distill a set of rules probabilities regardless of the game mechanic, express them as a percent chance to succeed and simply resolve the task with percentage dice.

From a fun factor aspect, mechanics are important. If they are too fiddly or complicated, they game becomes more like work. If they are too simple, one side or the other might become bored while waiting for their turn to come around. The best mechanics are ones that are interactive. Where I hit you and you save to avoid death is a good example. It lets the passive player feel like he is influencing the outcome and forces him to pay attention to the game.

Probably striking a happy medium between fun and technical aspects would always make a good game.

I am shocked. Game Mechanics are the key to any system being realistic and playable which includes being understandable.

The need for solid game mechanics which can be defended in a debate by the designer is essential in proving validity in the military experience, research ability and the ability to transfer both types of information to game terms.

If a designer cannot defend his mechanics based on solid research then his work will not being taken seriously by a core of gamers in the field that he is attempting to work in.

In regards to being a military veterean, this fact does help in designing rules in several areas. Some of these areas often attract a number of questions on TMP. How to do Command and Control, fog of war, fatigue, pinned,marching rates being affected by time, formation and terrain, and suppressed-morale among others. Military veterans understand how such issues affect soldiers today and in the past. At least more so than non-veterans trying to design rules. Many gamers who are veterans who will examine mechanics in a light of experience.

I think a core rules system would work if the modules depict the same type of warfare. If the focus of the core rules is on deciding the battle through hand-to-hand contact with some limited effectiveness of ranged weapons then they can cover anything from ancients to Medieval. Again, if the focus is on linear warfare where the deciding method is ranged fire then it could cover anything from late 17th century through the end of the 19th. And so on. However, I don't think the core rules could cover ancients, horse & musket, modern and future warfare without significant changes in the period modules. Concepts like command and control and unit activation which might be similar but the way of determining the conflict would be different.

[I am shocked. Game Mechanics are the key to any system being realistic and playable which includes being understandable.]

I'm not sure how that's a response to the question. Since "realistic" is entirely subjective, and gamers often disagree, I didn't even bother raising that point. And since "understandable" is also totally variable, based on each gamer's preferences, and the degree to which the rules are well-written, I didn't bother bringing that up, either.

The question was: doesn't every system ultimately come down to rolling a die and hoping to get X or Y? What difference does it really make that we use a similar type of mechanic for throwing rocks, or for spaceships?

[The need for solid game mechanics which can be defended in a debate by the designer is essential in proving validity in the military experience, research ability and the ability to transfer both types of information to game terms.]

I think that the most important criterion is designing a good game that is fun to play. Otherwise – if nobody likes it and nobody plays it – then all of this is moot, anyway.

[If a designer cannot defend his mechanics based on solid research then his work will not being taken seriously by a core of gamers in the field that he is attempting to work in.]

That "core of gamers" is usually pretty small, though, and will probably never be totally satisfied with whatever "research" went into the design. As somebody else said on that same thread, I'm not going to waste my time trying to please people who pride themselves on being hard to please.

Besides – and this gets back to the original topic and questions – game mechanics aren't based on historical research. There's no historical research you can do that will tell you: "The correct way to resolve a cavalry charge is by having players roll against each other with two d10s, and then consulting a table of modifiers…."

Ultimately game design comes down to a series of decisions on how to use a fairly limited palette (dice of different kinds and numbers, tables/charts, mathematical sub-routines, and putting certain things in a certain order.) Sure, there's a difference between ACW ironclads and Macedonian pikemen, but if you're making a *game*, then you still have to choose from that same palette in either case.

Core rules are OK, but the designer needs to support the other periods. If a company comes out with WWII rule and tells the public that a modern rule set is going to come out. In the mean time they decide that they are going to come out with an ancient game and all these supplements are coming down the pipe for that ancients game. Then before you know it, that modern game supplement seems more unlikely. You might have bought the WWII game as a compromise, now there is no modern supplement and you will have to buy a different modern rule set. So you have two rule sets to learn.

Mike

Well said, Gouvion! There is no defensible reason why game mechanics can't extend over multiple periods, and it is usually unique game mechanics and not some unique historical insight that distinguishes a good wargame from a clunker.

Contrary from the beliefs of many gamers the history is the chrome and the game mechanics the meat and potatoes of a good wargame. The range of a Charleville musket is going to be pretty much the same from rule set to rule set (when corrected for ground scale) and the rough parameters of rate of movement between horse, foot , and guns are also seldom argued about from rule book to rule book. It is how the game mechanics reflect the interaction, sequencing, and vagaries of movement and maneuver that distinguish one game from anther and the pedestrian design from the unique and insightful one.

It is also in the choice and invention of mechanics that the designer takes the scattered tidbits of history and makes them come to life. It is what animates the play of the game.

If it were merely the historical research and aggregation of (usually spurious) data that made a good wargame then we should have more good designs than we do-since those skills are not uncommon while the design of mechanics that capture history and are enjoyable are rare and only a few people do that well.

Most wargamers are rather undemanding in that regard with "roll a six" and rigid and predictable game sequencing more the norm than the exception. Part of this is due to familiarity and low tolerance for change that is rampant in wargaming. It often takes any new set of rules several years to permeate even 50% of the hobby, and most gaming groups are VERY parochial, having little contact with other gamers outside their immediate group, and quite set in their prejudices about what is "realistic."

However, change does come to the hobby and it is always through new mechanics-seldom any startling new historical facts. You are quite right that the mechanics seldom have any basis in historical findings, but are conceptual, creative, insights by designers that see new and different ways to construct the play of a wargame to better use the historical data we do have.

These new constructs almost always run afoul of those that are resistant to change and immediately charge the new methods with being wrong, unusable, and "Unrealistic", sometimes all three! It usually takes about 2-3 years and they drop this complaint and merely say they are a bad game, after another 2-3 years they become a new norm and are then accepted as a matter of individual choice. The best indication of this is the lifting of these concepts and their use in a wider and wider circle of games (usually uncredited).

I would argue that the palette of tools is often too circumscribed, again by too much reliance on how things have always been done, and that there are some interesting new ways to use new tools as well as reinventing the use of devices that are commonly used. My main complaint with most rule sets is not that they are historically "wrong", but that they are simply dull and uninteresting.

Rudy really needs that sarcasm icon.

The core mechanic does not need the degree of careful choice that his post suggests, though some care is necessary. What *can* require the ability to research and defend your design choices is how the specific setting or genre of the game is reflected in those mechanics. Not all genres reflect well into all mechanics or all scales.

The recent editions of D&D led to some vocabulary that, IMO, clears up the distinction. The three terms are "Core Mechanics", "Crunch", and "Fluff". How they related is:

Mechanics -----> Crunch <----- Fluff

that is, that the Fluff (which is the genre and its specific conventions, and can be SF, Fantasy, or any era of history) informs the specific application of the Mechanics to create the Crunch.

In the case of D&D, the d20, the pattern of characteristics and their modifiers, and the basic class-and-level structure form the Mechanics, the Fluff genre is Fantasy in its myriad settings, and the Crunch is the endless list of spells, specific races, classes, magic items, mundane equipment, and feats.

In the case of, say, a Napoleonics tabletop game of some vintage, the CRT is your core mechanic, Napoleon's wars are your genre/fluff, and the movement rates, ranges, specific choices of attack and defensive numbers to use with the CRT, and the "+1 for being French" are examples of the Crunch.

Mechanics are the main source of grumbling by the "want a fun fast game" crowd, though being buried in Crunch has been both the bane and boon of D&D.
Crunch and the specific presentation of Fluff will tend to draw the ire of the period experts, be they ACW scholars or fans of the latest Drizz't book.

While just about every combination has been tried at one time or other, not all Mechanics are a good (or even useable) match to all genres of Fluff, but some Mechanics seem to have a broader fit than others.

"research then his work will not being taken seriously by a core of gamers in the field that he is attempting to work in.

In regards to being a military veterean, this fact does help in designing rules in several areas. Some of these areas often attract a number of questions on TMP. How to do Command and Control, fog of war, fatigue, pinned,marching rates being affected by time, formation and terrain, and suppressed-morale among others. Military veterans understand how such issues affect soldiers today and in the past. At least more so than non-veterans trying to design rules. Many gamers who are veterans who will examine mechanics in a light of experience."

I dont agree.

We have a fairly small number of ways of reaching a "realistic" conclucion using factors and a random dicing element. Thats it. How "realistic" it is has to be subjective, and no disrespect but would a WW2 veteran for example know if a set of Grand tactical rules was "realistic" through his experience – no.

Research wise, any period and every single situation that occurred can be researched using the following question:

"did this happen rarely/sometimes/often/most of the time historically". You simply weight your factors accordingly and roll a dice. Simple.

As for command and control etc, no wargaming system ever made is "realistic" – they all use mechanisms to limit and funnel the players to what the perceived outcome should be.

David
tabletopreview.com

A very experienced gamer (my first mentor per say in gaming) once told me that when you are creating a set of rules you need to break it down to this "for any given situation, if I do this, I would expect this to happen. Then you apply the odds to that (almost all the time, most of the time, 50-50…..etc) and come up with a mechanic / die roll that generates those results."

i.e. if a unit of cavalry charge a steady formed square the typical result is bad for the cavalry. Now apply a game mechanic, dice, drawing cards……where if a player decides to do that the result is as expected very bad.

Now add in some "flavoring of the period". For example skirmish WWII, I would expect that if I tell my squad to move out they will do that. Large scale Dark Age battle, I may need a command system or a die roll to see if the shield wall will advance when I want it too (different period, different problems, and different feel to the game)?

I do think rule systems can get into trouble when they try to mix time periods in the same game, i.e. when the Scythian Archers assault the Panzer? Pretty hard to represent this in any reasonable game mechanic or die role.

It is also pretty hard to translate Norman knights fighting Early Egyptians with any historically realistic game mechanics.

Technology jumping becomes a major problem. While the same rules fighting Normans Vs. Saxons will apply equally well to Egyptians Vs Assyrians, and with a slight suspension of belief allow the Normans to fight the Egyptians as well (infantry, archers, cavalry – add some equalization for technology through point cost or other game mechanics). Many systems accomplish this with minor adjustments to the rules or point costs, WAB, DBA, DBM…….

Realistic and historical are often over used words when talking about "gaming."

Most important the rules should not drain the fun from the game or time period :)

"Most wargamers are rather undemanding in that regard with "roll a six" and rigid and predictable game sequencing more the norm than the exception. Part of this is due to familiarity and low tolerance for change that is rampant in wargaming. It often takes any new set of rules several years to permeate even 50% of the hobby, and most gaming groups are VERY parochial, having little contact with other gamers outside their immediate group, and quite set in their prejudices about what is "realistic."

This is the single most sensible post I have read in a wargamin forum for years!

David
tabletopreview.com

This thread is opening up a whole worm cannery. There are a couple of points I want to respond to. First, realism and first hand military experience. I personally have extensive experience of watching and reading war, fantasy and western films and novels. This is what I want to recreate, not the brutal business of real war. The grumpy old men of gaming are welcome to look down on me if they wish – I'm having too much fun to care. I couldn't give a fig what the muzzle velocity of that gun is (or whether it was actually in production in 1880) – as far as I'm concerned it's got a range of 18" and Tex hits with it on a 5+, so let's roll some dice. Secondly, on the issue of saving throws, I'm pretty indifferent, but I think it's good to give the inactive player something to do whilst he waits for his turn.

Quick note: part 1. This will be short and incomplete. I am about to go into a meeting with the State EMA/DHS representative on panedemic flu, various EMA issues and homeland security issues.

Even rules designed 'to have fun' rather than being steeped in realism still must follow classification game mechanics to make a system playable.

For example you cannot have a Old West gunman throwing a knife further than he can shoot a pistol. The use of simple logic is still the basis factor in making a game mechanic.

Another example would be you would not expect a Old West gunman to be able to crawl further in a turn than a gunman mounted on a horse.

A lot of the comments are clearly from the 'play quick and have fun' rather than presenting viable game mechanics which reflect realism.

Those who do not feel that game mechanics should be reflective of historical situations have a difficult time defending in a debate specific on why a particular concept is used.

Mechanics are critical. Cross era rules will inariably fail, for me.

What I look for in a game is a rules set that captures the spirit and challenges of the era. If playing WWII, I want to deal with small teams of men accomplishing objectives through a dizzying array of incoming fire. If playing ancients, I want my decisions to be about setting up for battle on an open plain and going forward resolutely. In Napoleonics games, command and control and formations are of critical importance as well as that sweet balance between infantry, cavalry, and artillery.

You cannot achieve those radically different 'spirits' by perfectly modelling firepower, distances, and combat capabilities. Psychology and emphasis are required. The morale tables for a Medieval infantryman cannot be the same as that for a jet fighter pilot.

Every game that seeks to capture a certain spirit of an age MUST be built from the ground up with that spirit in mind. You cannot even port over directly from Napoleon Wars to ACW. I want rules for the ACW that reflect chaos and unreliable troops. I want the mechanics to play much more fast and loose but that always have a chance to bog down into stalemates.

Bad MMOs (Massive multiplayer online games) and roleplaying games keep falling into this trap. The levelling up and getting stuff system works very well for the fantasy genre but is patently ridiculous in a Call of Cthulhu game. But the mechanics also don't work for swashbuckling or modern era crimefighting. The first is about destroying things and getting their stuff. It follows the Conan model. What level was Serpico? How many people did Athos have to kill to get his abilities. Can you build a superhero MMO where you have to fight people to get discarded random armour and costume pieces for your hero?

Do game mechanics really matter?

Yes.

If they're too stupid, then I can't suspend my disbelief and become absorbed in the game.

If they're too completely random (i.e. tactics make no statistical difference) then it isn't any fun.

If they're too complex, nobody wants to play.
-Kle.

That pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Interesting discussion, and some wise words from different keyboards.

Here's my take: No set of rules can make me feel like a general, but too many make me feel like an accountant. Some make me feel like a lawyer. If I'd wanted to be an accountant or a lawyer, I would have done so long ago.

Mechanics are critical to a good game but that is not the same as just rolling dice

Isn't a saving roll just a way of keeping the other player involved during a period when he would otherwise be bored or a way of distracting him from using the time to plan his masterstroke!

Dise gives a gamer somthing to blame (other than a lack of skill)
I is just a penelty against the better general!

Julius Caesar said "The die is cast" and look at his luck

One of my favorite non-dice rolling mechanics – I saw it last year:

WWI off board artillery – the artillery officers were handed cotton balls and told to throw them :) Not sure if it was realistic or not, but the players certainly enjoyed it!

I am about to go into a meeting with the State EMA/DHS representative on panedemic flu, various EMA issues and homeland security issues.

RudyNelson this sounds bad, has biological agents been used by a terrorist power?

Game mechanics are extremely important.

Just one for instance:

In modern warfare the range and accuracy of weapons are capable of causing massive damage to marching bands on football fields. But:

If you take the same number of people and put them behind a stone wall or in a bunker the ability to cause casualties drops not a little but exponentially. So you then have to address (in terms of game mechanics) how you are going to account for this. Simply saying you need to roll a 4-6 to hit if no cover and a 5 or a 6 if they are in hard cover don't get it because the chances of causing casualties are probably less than 1%.

So . . . various rules will do things like requiring a unit to take more hits to kill with the ability to bounce back quickly (BKC); multiple die rolls that incorporate weapon effectiveness and experience of the troops receiving fire (ROE); or the old Squad Leader use of using two dice with modifiers to create a more exponential treatment of the subject.

I find some of these less satisfying than others but all of these rules recognize the effects of cover and are trying to model the effects of fire and cover.

I'm sure there are some rules out there that will say you cannot hit a unit in a bunker unless you close to point blank -- which might be pretty accurate in some cases.

mjc

"The morale tables for a Medieval infantryman cannot be the same as that for a jet fighter pilot."

Are you properly separating model and mechanic?

Looking at your example: grossly speaking, a table based morale system can be taken as "Accumulate the input to the morale state. Generate random factor (or not). Consult table. Apply output as game event and/or state change"

Yes the table, and probably also the input factors and output results would be different. But the mechanic in the middle could still be the same for both, be it fistfull of dice, one die, or multi-dimensional state change table with no dice, or whatever.

Yes, the model must differ, but why should the mechanic used to run a state through the model differ?

[you cannot have a Old West gunman throwing a knife further than he can shoot a pistol. The use of simple logic is still the basis factor in making a game mechanic. Another example would be you would not expect a Old West gunman to be able to crawl further in a turn than a gunman mounted on a horse.]

Rudy, I'm still not sure what you're responding to, or against whom you're arguing. Nobody is talking about whether or not – within any given game system – there should be different values for different things.

I will repeat the opening point:

"whether we're gaming ICBMS or a fist-fight, we're ultimately doing the same thing: rolling a die or some dice, perhaps modifiying it for something, and then hoping for a certain result. Are there really particular dice mechanics – or even game mechanics, for that matter – that "taste" like one period, or belong in one period, but not another?"

[A lot of the comments are clearly from the 'play quick and have fun' rather than presenting viable game mechanics which reflect realism.]

Once again, nobody is talking about whether or not game mechanics reflect realism.

There are, however, only a limited number of game mechanics available, and they mostly boil down to: "Roll a die or some dice… compare against the other guy's die or dice… or against a chart… maybe with a modifier."

Since every single wargame uses some version of those mechanics, why would people think that certain mechanics are appropriate for one period or subject, but others aren't?

[Those who do not feel that game mechanics should be reflective of historical situations have a difficult time defending in a debate specific on why a particular concept is used.]

Once again, nobody is arguing whether or not game mechanics reflect historical situations. That is far too subjective for anybody ever to agree upon, anyway.

The question is more like: I have a tank, shooting at your tank. Which is better: to roll a d20, trying for a "hit number?" Or to roll several d6s, trying for X-number of "hits." ?

Why would anybody believe that rolling one kind of dice, or using one kind of chart, is more "realistic," "historical," or "accurate?"

I think Rudy is answering a different question to the one asked by Gouvion. I took it to mean "to what extent should different periods be modelled by different mechanics". My answer to that is, "not much". Take the basic Warhammer combat mechanic; roll to hit, based on matrix of opposed skills, roll to wound based on matrix of weapon strength and target toughness, roll save if appropriate, apply damage. That works for blocks of pikemen poking at each other, space soldiers firing lasers and plasma cannon at each other, dwarves attacking demons with runic axes, etc. It's the ancillary factors (weapon ranges in relation to movement rates, breadth of variation in skill, strength and damage, etc) that aremodified to suit the era, not the basic rules.

On saving throws.

Let's consider Command Decision. Frank Chadwick is an excellent designer with a good track record. To correctly model AT fire in WWII he has separated the roll to hit with the roll to penetrate armour if you hit. Both, of course, rolled by the firing player.

If I hand the penetration die to the player who's tank was hit and ask him to make his statisticly identical saving throw, does it suddenly become evil?

[If I hand the penetration die to the player who's tank was hit and ask him to make his statisticly identical saving throw, does it suddenly become evil?]

Yes, cuz then it becomes FLAMES OF WAR!!!

"The morale tables for a Medieval infantryman cannot be the same as that for a jet fighter pilot."

Are you properly separating model and mechanic?

Looking at your example: grossly speaking, a table based morale system can be taken as "Accumulate the input to the morale state. Generate random factor (or not). Consult table. Apply output as game event and/or state change"

Yes the table, and probably also the input factors and output results would be different. But the mechanic in the middle could still be the same for both, be it fistfull of dice, one die, or multi-dimensional state change table with no dice, or whatever.

Yes, the model must differ, but why should the mechanic used to run a state through the model differ?

I'd argue that the method of randomness determination isn't a critical mechanic but it also is a tiny portion of what game mechanics are.

Morale tests, command and control, random or constant movement, turn radius, how often players have to look up charts, how much control a player has on whether units can move or not, whether it is IGYG or simultaneous movement, line of sight, casualty removal, and relationship between movement and weapon ranges are all mechanics. Those are the critical and decisive mechanics.

GSM:
"If I hand the penetration die to the player who's tank was hit and ask him to make his statisticly identical saving throw, does it suddenly become evil?]

Yes, cuz then it becomes FLAMES OF WAR!!!"

Oh the shame. You need to go wash your hands young man.

I need to be clearer as to whom I am responding to. I was mainly commenting to 'runs with scissors' and the concept that even easy to play gunfighter rules must have some logical parameters.

I do not think I have responded directly to Sam's comments on about my commetns.

The issue of game designer 'qualifications' (if there are any) goes back to the 1970s at least. I remember such discussions at the local hobby shop even back then.

In regards to the meeting. The extent of local preparations should any event natural or manmade is critical to an effective response which would save lifes.

Hi

The old "period specific" versus "general core" arguement! Will we ever agree.

I fall on the "core" principle.

Someone above posted what he thought was stupid with "i.e. when the Scythian Archers assault the Panzer? Pretty hard to represent this in any reasonable game mechanic or die role."

Of course, if you game vietnam, you have Montangard hillman with crossbow versus VC with russian armor which suggests the opposite.

R

Or Abyssinians against Cv 33s.

I do not believe that that morale of men is unchanged throughout the ages. There are huge differences from war to war, depending on cultural and historical factors.

You cannot claim that the attitude of a Soviet soldier in WWII is analogous to an Aztec warrior, because their value systems were so different. They were equally brave, but for the Aztec warfare was an individual experience rather than a collective effort.

Some wars show men able to take almost any strain before breaking, and never flinching in their patriotism. Others show men changing sides at the drop of a hat if things aren't going to well. Amazingly these can even include the same men (e.g. Russians in WWI and the RCW.)

Any morale system that assumes all men have behaved the same over time is not based on actual evidence.

Moreover gamers fight different periods precisely because they are different. Why would we then want to submerge the little differences between them in one set of "uber"-rules?

The answer to your question is NO – the mechanics do not matter so long as they work in the game you are playing. Whether the game has a "historical feel" or produces a "realistic experience" is all within the boundaries of the people playing the game. The mechanics will not matter and people will differ on which mechanics they prefer over others. No one die rolling convention is better than any other – in the end it is a randomization effect to change Chess into something where there are elements of chance and risk as opposed to pure skill. Most of the more popular rules sets combine elements of skill with elements of luck to varying degrees to make the games fun, playable, and enjoyable. The mechanics of that system are irrelevant – whether it is WWII, Ancients, or Sci-Fi – you can use the same mechanics for all of them and they all work to a greater or lesser degree.

As for the "historically accurate" people out there – NO set of rules is ever going to be "historically accurate" because the rules cannot approximate the variables which were present at the time that the event(s) took place with regularity. Further, the truth is stranger than fiction and no set of rules is going to always allow one player to be Napoleon, or Alexander, or Hannibal, or Guderian, or Patton, or Lee, or name your favorite commander here and to do what he (they) did with surprising regularity – which is win battles of which the outcome was far from certain at the outset. Historical accuracy comes from the figures, and getting results which fall within the parameters of what actually did happen historically.

I think what gets lost in the shuffle here is that no one would want to play a game where one side has no chance of ever winning the contest – so for example – no one would want to play a game of say Zulu's where there was no chance for the Zulu's to win a battle, or for the British to win a battle, and it goes the same for every period. In any given rules set – anyone can "break" the rules if they try hard enough. All rules sets are not designed for the number crunchers out there – they are designed to have fun and for enjoyment – and enjoyment means different things to different people.

NO set of rules is ever going to be "historically accurate"

Errr, so?

The differences arise about how much emphasis should be put on realism. Some say a lot, some say very little.

Just as one cannot get perfectly accurate rules, one cannot get a perfect game system either. So should does this mean because we cannot have perfect historical accuracy nor perfect gaming systems that we should stop playing any wargame?

Rocky,
LOL. I stand corrected, and I do not game Vietnam. However it sounds like we need a game mechanic for this!!!

I would be interested in knowing how well the hillmen do against the Russian tank if they only use crossbows for weapons :)

Maybe we can adapt FOW to cover this…….?

Without having waded through the above, I will just make some brief observations on systems theory:

Wargame mechanics are abstract processes modeling physical and emotional effects within a social framework (i.e. the gaming hobby).

As such, they can be judged on two levels:

1. Do they succeed in modeling those effects to the degree of accuracy desired?
2. Do they succeed in satisfying the needs of the social underpinning of the activity – i.e. do they provide an enjoyable gaming experience?

Obviously, both of these criteria are subjective. Just as obviously, neither is tied to any particular chronological period. Thus, while a game mechanic can provide a convincing and enjoyable experience to one person in a particular period, it may not do so for another person. In the same way, one person may find that the same mechanic can span multiple periods, while another may not. Since the mechanic itself is an abstraction that is evaluated on a subjective basis, the answer to "Do mechanics matter?" is "Absolutely! But on an individual basis."

On a practical level, this means that for a wargame mechanic to "succeed" at spanning multiple periods, it needs to model those periods in an enjoyable way to the targeted portion of the hobby. If that "target" is just your group, great! If it is the "gamists" or "simulationists" or "GW cross-overs" or "new hobbyists", then different criteria apply.

The reason that there are so many visceral arguments about the viability of gaming mechanics is that many gamers, for whatever reason, refuse to recognize the relative role of rules and see them as an absolute.

It's all about sharing the love, baby! ;)

Cheers,

Christopher

It is my opinion that most if not all game mechanics have been used in either board games or miniatures in the past.

Those of us who designed games back in the 1970s did create mechanics based on an acceptability level to new concepts from responses by play test groups.

For example the simple mechanic of re-rolls based on a morale/melee rating would have been a way to speed up Guard du Corps back in the 1970s and reduce the amount of time doing modifiers to combat charts.

But sometimes we are no as objective. One of my preferences is for d10 dice. I feel that d6 is too limiting in the variable combat-morale rolls. So unless there is a specific reason that I use d6, then I will design my charts and tables with d10.

Another dice related issue is that I like to vary the result numbers so that a high number is not always good and a low number always bad. This variation provides some play balance in the dice rolling aspects.

"It is my opinion that most if not all game mechanics have been used in either board games or miniatures in the past."

Rather like "Most if not all music has been used in popular or classical performances in the past."

I am absolutely positive that new techniques, tools, and approaches, including new, inventive uses of older game devices will happen, and they will not have been used in the past.

What an old fogy idea!

[Another dice related issue is that I like to vary the result numbers so that a high number is not always good and a low number always bad. This variation provides some play balance in the dice rolling aspects.]

Huh? How would changing around the To-Score numbers provide play-balance?

It will, however, confuse the hell out of people trying to learn the game! "Do I need to roll above this number for morale? No wait, it's "equal or less than" for morale, but "greater than" for shooting…"

The changing of dice to-score numbers prevents the use of dice that always rolls either high or low.

Sam again your arguments are weak, Simple probability game design mechanics. The system has been used for decades by various rules. for example you have a 60% chance to hit a target so you need to roll a 60 or less on 2 x d10. In the same set of rules, you may have a morale staus that requires a number higher than 20% to pass morale.

Piquetone my concepts may be viewed as old fogy by you but I have never failed to be able to defend my concepts in a debate on conveerting historical realism to playable game mechanics. What is a concept that you have used that is unique to your rules that some set in the past has not used a variant of them?

The changing of dice to-score numbers prevents the use of dice that always rolls either high or low.

buh?