"If you like point systems in your rules..." Topic

what's the attraction?

Thanks!

1. For a quick game, both sides have an equal chance to win if the points are equal (in theory).
2.Both of equal points combats will likely both attack and defend, making for a more varied game than with one side defending.
3.Between players with different abilities, it allow a handycap to be built in (say +10%) to give both sides an equal chance to win.
4. In points games, you can choose your forces from a list. One player may prefer fast but lighter troops, another slow but better armed. (Me, I like elephants!).
5. Its easier to prepare a scenario. (Yes, the river gives the defender a bonus. About how many points worth?)
In an ideal world, I prefer scenarios to a straight points game, and I realize that in 'real' battles, the forces aren't equal. But I'm not in the real world when I game. I want to have fun and have both sides have an equal chance. Points values help do this.(if done correctly.(a "Holy Grail" if there ever was one.)

I used to know a fellow who was a real stickler about refusing to play games without a point system. He always cited play balance and fairness. I found later that he cheated like a B**tard and used the points as a means to do so. I have played a good number of different games with and without points. The lack of points has never adversely affected the fun I have had playing. In fact I have had more fun coming up with a scenario at the spur of the moment and throwing the figures down on the table, than I have agonizing over how close to the 2000 point army limit I was. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers.
GeorgeD

What Calico Bill said!

Options are good. It just provides you one more way of approaching/structuring your game.

I still like the old Warrior Heroes army point approach. Points but random selection from the army chart.

I'm not so much interested in a points system as some clues as to what makes for an enjoyable game. All too often, I hear "just use historical scenarios", or "use what you feel like", but then I only have to look so far as this TMP thread to see that my concerns about a dud game aren't unwarranted:

TMP link

Historical scenarios and battles are all fine, but it does help, particularly when learning a new system and particularly when trying to convince others to try it, if you can play a scenario that's at least been playtested for basic flaws and has achievable goals for both sides.

A well thought out point system gives players a starting point, even if it's not ideal.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why so many publishers that tout "no points" systems as an advantage don't provide some well-tested scenarios as an alternative. Surely they've played dozens if not hundreds of good ones over the years. Share them! It would be nice to try a new rule set out for the first few times and not wind up in a broken scenario. Sorry, but providing a few pages of historical TO&E and nothing more and telling players to figure it out is a bit of a cop-out.

In the absence of some recommended starting scenarios -- something more than a few figures facing off -- to help me figure out what makes or breaks a game, I'd appreciate some GM tips to help get past the awkward "figuring things out" stage quickly.

In the absence of that, and lacking much experience with a set of rules, a points system may be all I've got to go on. It's another option.

- Bob

All points systems are inherently broken.

There is nothing wrong with a 'well thought out' points system but I prefer one that accurately reflects the combat capabilities and potential of the troops.

This is NOT an easy thing to do and can easily go astray if a scenario is something different to those considered by the author. Even extensive playtesting doesn't always result in an accurate system, ittakes more than that, it takes ANALYSIS of the game system and its mechanics as well.

What a good points system will do is to make you think about WHY the two sides in a game are different values. You may have the balance right for a good game (terrain, attacker has more points etc) but points values can give you a hint something may be wrong.

As an example of how difficult it can be – many people have tried to fit a points system to DBA but I've yet to see one that works across the whole period of the rules and with historical opponents. Grafting on the system in a similar game (DBM) doesn't actually work either.

"but I prefer one that accurately reflects the combat capabilities and potential of the troops."

So would I, but I've never seen one that actually does that.

"All points systems are inherently broken."

True. But the closest I've ever seen is the one for Hordes of the Things. Very well done.

I've asked this question to others that I game with and after the answers that Calico Bill gave, when asked if there is anything else, someone once described the following and it was like a light came on for a couple others in the conversation:

Point system type games allow players to build "their" own force. It's a force build that someone else didn't dicate to them beyond the army list limitations and points values. They didn't have to worry about a unit they didn't want to field beyond it's effectiveness in the game. And/or it may be a unit that looks "good" and they want to use it in the game, if it fits within the limitations of the army list values, regardless of the scenario at times. The "force" is MINE beyond simply owning and fielding the figures themselves.

In other words, it helps to play into the greed of some miniature wargamers.

Ed asked:

If you like point systems in your rules, what's the attraction?

Uh, because otherwise, your games would be pointless!
ĦBA DUM!

Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week!

OK, in all seriousness, I can see why games that aim for league and tournament style play would have point systems. That way they can say "for regional and national heats, players will use a 1500 point force" or some such. It also allows certain companies (not just GW) to sell a single mini for the price of a small squad. For people who just want to deploy some figures and roll some dice, I think relatively simple game mechanics and scenario based play are preferable.

I used to play with a Napoleonic group who only played WRG and their attachement to the point system was almost religious. And to make sure that no one got an "unfair" advantage there was almost no terrain. Lots of fun. Not.

I take point systems as a token of respect from the game designer. The player is respected enough to playtest the game in some depth prior to publication. Writing rules is fun. Testing a point system is work.

I take a game without a points system as a sign that the game designer was a little lazy. I generally bypass the game and move on. Games are everywhere. The latest game I have rejected, Ancient & Medieval Wargaming, would likely not have been rejected with a simple point system.

All point systems are flawed. I also give props to designers that revise a point system to correct abuse.

In college, we played BattleTech with point bids. An odd established force with all sorts of things like fortifications, artillery, traps and the like was planned. Both sides bid. The lower point bid got to build a force to attack the established force. Victory conditions were often more complex than most published gaming scenarios. Dramatic, contentious games with lots of flavor and tension resulted. Without a points system it would not have worked.

For me it depends on the game. WWII, I don't need points system as I know the relative value of vehicles and troops based on their real-life abilities. Ancients, I need a points system as I'm not as familiar with the abilities and how the rules interpret them. We just played a game of Byzantines vs. Crusaders. Points were calculated at about 1360 per side (within about 4 or 6 points) until it was discovered that one unit was left off the Byzantine sheet, giving them another 25 points. It took 7 turns and the Crusaders actually cracked the Byz line because of the overabundance of missile fire they had. It was a good game and couldn't have done it without a points system.

We employ points to "build" armies with. But my favorite sort of game is the scenario builder approach: where you roll for army size, composition, and terrain….

1066.us

Religon said – "I take point systems as a token of respect from the game designer. The player is respected enough to playtest the game in some depth prior to publication. Writing rules is fun. Testing a point system is work.

I take a game without a points system as a sign that the game designer was a little lazy. I generally bypass the game and move on. Games are everywhere."

Did you really mean to sound quite so arrogant and entitled? Really? Because I don't actually need, or really want, your approval. You aren't who I design games for.

I've written a lot of rules over the past twenty five years. Published rules. Well received rules. Rules that are always mentioned in those threads that come up on TMP about 'favourite rules systems'. None of them have points systems, because none of them have needed them.

Actually I'm trying to incorporate a very basic budgeting system into two sets I'm designing now. You know, veterans are worth three points, green troops are worth one. But I'm keeping it dead simple, throwing in some random aspects, and generally trying to avoid that bizarre "accountants make a shopping list" aspect of points systems that cater to the least creative, most anal retentive among our brethren. I just don't want those people to play my games!

Writing rules is fun, but it's also hard work to do well. The idea that I should somehow pay for my fun by putting in a points system, necessary or not, to somehow show that I respect some notional player, or that I am not some lazy bum tapping on a keyboard seems ludicrous. Risible. Idiotic.

Games are, indeed, everywhere. But so are gamers, and I'm not looking to impress people who take pride in how hard they are to impress.

If I am not familiar with a brand new rules set, a points system helps me to determine what the writer thinks is a balanced game.
It also lets me determine what the author thinks is important for game play.
Not all succeed, but that's OK.

I enjoy games with "balanced" points systems, and it is irrelevant if they are "broken" (whatever that means) or not.
I also enjoy games with no points system at all.

Point systems and commander ratings are the sections i always skip.
As well as national and unit ratings.
I have my own biases to suppress, don't need anyone elses.

Points are the lazy way to put a game together. No research needed.

Points create a game within the game. So you can amuse yourself before and after the game.

mjc

I love the whole building armies thing that a points system allows you to do. I once went right the way through the three WRG 6th Ancients army list books constructing a list for each army just for the fun of building the armies.

Likewise I often work out the points values of my WW2 armies based on the FoW system.

What's the catch?

I never play points based games: only historical scenarios!

So I like a points system for the fun of army building; but not for actually playing the game!

Weird.

VB

Two big reasons and a little one

1. Makes "pick up games" possible. Your can meet a random opponent, possibly a complete stranger, and have a reasonably well balanced game. Whether its entertaining or not depends, as for all games, largely on the opponent.
2. In some games (not all, maybe not even most) the "list engineering" aspect is an entertaining part of the game experience.
3. Tournaments. I'm not one of those who thinks tournament gamers are weird ultra-competitive wannabees – I used to do a fair few tournies and have perhaps 2 bad games in 3 years.

Points are easier to set a game with than researching a historical scenario, depends how much time and energy you've got.

Scenario generators can also work well.

If I have the time and energy to design one, a good historical scenario is possibly a more satisfying game, but sometimes these things have taken me several years to work up, so when short of time points (or any kind of list/selection system) are your friend.

"I enjoy games with "balanced" points systems, and it is irrelevant if they are "broken" (whatever that means) or not."

Exactly my point (which I seem to have to explain every time this topic comes up). You imply that a "balanced" pointys system will mean that if both players have the same number of points then they have an equal chance of winning the game.

Poppycock! The only situation where that MIGHT be true is if the two armies are exactly similar and one half of the terrain is a mirror image of the other half.

Thus all points systems are broken, because a "balanced" game can never be balanced.

It's not for nothing that most military analysts say you need a 3:1 advantage when attacking a defended position.

"Makes "pick up games" possible."

So called "pick up games" are perfectly possible without a points system. Just have a library of scenarios and pick one.

"In some games (not all, maybe not even most) the "list engineering" aspect is an entertaining part of the game experience. "

I have never found it so. On the contrary, I cannot help feeling that it is an ahistorical activity. No general in his right mind would say: "No, I won't take the heavy cavalry today, I'd rather have lot's more light cavalry"!

But Mike, we're not playing our games in the "real world". Our little lead toy General CAN choose more heavy cavalry. Why not let him? Many find making up an army a fun part of gaming. If you don't, fine, but why decry others who do?
Points systems are useful for the reasons I stated earlier. No, they're not perfect, but neither are any of the rules we use either. Perfect balance may not be achieved, but as long as its close enough so that both players have a good chance of winning, who cares? We play to have fun, right?

I'll mostly just echo similar comments:

Points systems enable easy, reasonably "balanced" pickup games. Simple as that.

For non-historically based games with a large variety of armies/forces, gauging relative effectiveness of fictional units may not be straight forward. In absence of any other metric, the "points cost" of a unit provides a starting point.

In reality, I'd bet that most people that are 'pro-points' are really in favor of some sort of structured, graduated system for composing an army independant of a fixed scenario (or opponent). A way were two players can seperately agree to play a small/medium/large game, seperately compose appropriate forces and then show up and play a game where both parties have a reasonable chance at achieving their victory conditions with a minimum of extra fuss.

To me it wouldn't matter what mechanic was used to provide that balanced army/force composition (points, unit-ratios, or something else), just that it existed … and that it was sufficiently play-tested to actaully perform that role.

"But Mike, we're not playing our games in the "real world". Our little lead toy General CAN choose more heavy cavalry. Why not let him? Many find making up an army a fun part of gaming. If you don't, fine, but why decry others who do?"

If you want to use points systems go ahead, it's your choice. But I am pointing out that a points system is artificial at best. I thought the point of historical wargaming was to put ourselves "in the shoes" of a historical general. If that is true how can anyone justify the points based method of deciding your army composition?

"Perfect balance may not be achieved, but as long as its close enough so that both players have a good chance of winning, who cares?"

Define "close enough" and how you might determine it.

"and that it was sufficiently play-tested to actually perform that role."

This is one of the myths of wargaming. You say "Oh, these rules have a points system. They must have spent a long time play testing them to get the points right." I do not believe that any set of rules currently available has undergone sufficient testing to make such a claim statistically supportable.

The min-maxing which goes on with points systems is one reason I prefer scenario generators (if I can't be bothered to work up an actual scenario).

Of course points systems are "artificial". They are also enjoyable. To some degree every rules set is "artificial."

"Of course points systems are "artificial"."

I meant in the sense that a historical general would not have such a choice. So why do people include such a system in their rules when there is no precedent?

"They are also enjoyable."

I disagree. YMMV.

Last hope. We play wargames, not chess. Even chess isn't absolutely balanced since White moves first. How a given historical unit behaved one day does not mean it will act that way the next, or under changed battle conditions. It may stand bravely one day & run like a rabbit the next. Conditions change. Our die rolls change things. Its part of the fun, or otherwise just read a history if you allow no change in the army, their movement, etc in an effort to be historical(?).
"Close enough" means both sides have a chance to win, the closer to 50-50 the better. Perfect no. But Jackson of the Valley performed much differently than Jackson of the Chicahomeny. Choosing historical units isn't perfect either.
"Points values are artificial" Yep. So are the rules, and our miniatures. So what?
"in the shoes of an historical general". Hardly. I don't recall any pre-ACW General directing the battle from 100 ft up to get a overall view. Gamers can do this all the time. Having a fun game based on history is not the same as the real battle (thankfully).

Anyway, back to the original topic. "If you like point systems in your rules"… You don't. So why comment?

>I meant in the sense that a historical general would not have such a choice. So why do people include such a system in their rules when there is no precedent?

There are a lot of things people who plays miniatures games do that "historical" generals do not do. Part of the hobby.

"We play wargames, not chess. Even chess isn't absolutely balanced since White moves first."

Precisely.

"How a given historical unit behaved one day does not mean it will act that way the next, or under changed battle conditions. It may stand bravely one day & run like a rabbit the next. Conditions change."

Precisely!!

You have just perfectly illustrated why points systems are broken. So why use them?

""Close enough" means both sides have a chance to win, the closer to 50-50 the better."

You have not answered my question. I asked how this probability of winning is determined?

"Jackson of the Valley performed much differently than Jackson of the Chickahominy."

Again, precisely!!

"Choosing historical units isn't perfect either."

I never said anything about choosing historical units. I was only saying that a points system, as a way of deciding an army composition, is fatally flawed. A point you seem to agree with.

""in the shoes of an historical general". Hardly. I don't recall any pre-ACW General directing the battle from 100 ft up to get a overall view. Gamers can do this all the time."

Yes, but that is why rules include mechanisms to limit what the "100ft general" can do. You are confusing the two issues.

"Anyway, back to the original topic. "If you like point systems in your rules"… You don't. So why comment?"

Because so many people have the mistaken impression that points systems are a good idea. You have clearly demonstrated why they are not!

>Yes, but that is why rules include mechanisms to limit what the "100ft general" can do. You are confusing the two issues.

No, that is still "artificial." The C2 mechanisms are better than nothing (sort of like a points system, eh) but remain "artificial".

I actually agree with Mike on this. I Don't use points and can't really see the 'point'in doing so. I'm aware of the historical abilities of the units in the eras I tend to wargame in, so knock together appropriate scenarios or use historical ones. So far, 30 years on, its worked fine. However, I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to use points. All power to yer elbow!

I still don't see why the fixation on historical game systems when the OP asked

"If you like point systems in your rules…"

I don't see a genre specific question.

Also, just because some don't see a point to one type of system doesn't mean there isn't a point.

It also doesn't mean one needs to convince someone who doesn't see it to prove it's worth either.

">Yes, but that is why rules include mechanisms to limit what the "100ft general" can do. You are confusing the two issues.
No, that is still "artificial." The C2 mechanisms are better than nothing (sort of like a points system, eh) but remain "artificial"."

Did I say wargame C2 mechanisms are not artificial? At least these artificial mechanisms are trying to mimic real life conditions such as limited visibility / awareness, command failure, etc. Points systems OTOH do not mimic anything that actually exists in reality.

"However, I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to use points. All power to yer elbow!"

Neither do I have a problem with people using points systems, so long as they are aware of the limitations and don't try to pretend that if I have an army of the same number of points as you, we have an equal (i.e. 50%) chance of winning the game.

I'd actually be much happier with a set of rules that said something like:

"Here's a points system to help you create your armies. Use the system to create forces that are in proportion to the armies of the period. (Note the maxima and minima are very important). Then design scenarios using these armies so that (for example) a force of 1000 pts is tasked with defending a position and your opponent has 3000 pts to attack you."

>Points systems OTOH do not mimic anything that actually exists in reality.

Presumably then you are filled with joy when Sci-Fi and Fantasy rules include points systems.

>I'd actually be much happier with a set of rules that said something like:

Given the market I think you are fated not to be entirely happy.

"I still don't see why the fixation on historical game systems when the OP asked "

Because in fantasy and science fiction gaming there is no historical precedent on which to base army composition!

"Also, just because some don't see a point to one type of system doesn't mean there isn't a point. "

Perhaps you could explain then what you think is the point?

"It also doesn't mean one needs to convince someone who doesn't see it to prove it's worth either."

No-one ever convinced anyone of anything here on TMP! It's just a free exchange of views. The OP invited comments on what we see as the attraction of points systems. My answer to his question is "none at all" and have proceeded to explain WHY I think that.

"Presumably then you are filled with joy when Sci-Fi and Fantasy rules include points systems."

See my previous comment about the limitations of a points system.

"Given the market I think you are fated not to be entirely happy."

I was going to say that is why I write my own rules, but then I remembered that I never use points systems in those for all the reasons I have already stated.

I have so many conflicting views on this that I'll probably contradict myself by the end of the paragraph, but I suppose it wouldn't be the first time.

1. Point systems can be fun, but for good or ill they take on a "game within a game" feel, in which plotting and planning one's ideal army list becomes a hobby unto itself. Like the fun role-players have in just generating their characters.

2. I don't for a moment believe that they make anything "equal." They're a collection of peculiar assumptions about what is worth what. (Is it more valuable to have greater movement? Or greater firepower? Which of those is worth more? And how much an increment of movement is "equal" to what sort of amount of firepower? And so on, ad infinitum.) People's playing styles have more to do with how much something is "worth" on a given army list.

Since somebody brought up chess as a "perfectly balanced" game…. I once had a regular opponent who usually beat me, until I realized that his game was entirely diagonal; he relied almost exclusively on his Queen and Bishops. So I forced him to trade Queen for Queen and Bishop for Bishop – seemingly an equal trade – and then always beat him, because my playing style relied heavily on my Knights. Once both our armies were bereft of Bishops – no change in "points" – I suddenly had the huge advantage.

3. If a points system will encourage more collecting and playing, then it's probably a good thing. Who cares if it's "balanced," as long as the players like it? As long as it brings people to the table and encourages them to do more interesting games that they never would have considered, had they been limited only to historical scenarios.

4. On the other hand, it's one more thing to argue and bitch about.

5. Then again, arguing and bitching are also important and deeply satisfying aspects of the hobby for a great many people!

6. Historical scenarios aren't "balanced," either. Yet people usually manage to have fun with them. Both scenarios and points-systems are crutches that we use in adulthood, because our imaginations are inferior to what they were, when we were 12. As kids, we had no trouble making up huge, elaborate narratives and playing make-believe with them all day and night. As adults, we're looking for some imagination-assistance, either to play within a historical framework (a scenario), or an arbitrary competitive framework (an army list.)

My answer to his question is "none at all" and have proceeded to explain WHY I think that.

The question said IF you like point systems.

I wanted to hear from those folks that like points and why they do.
This wasn't a thread asking for a debate.

The question:
"If you like point systems in your rules, what's the attraction?"
- sounds to me like you are questioning the validity of points systems in the first place.
However, apologies for misunderstanding your drift …

The nice thing about a point system in a set of rules is that one doesn't have to use them.

I like having force lists, but points values I always ignore.

On the other hand, once I have an idea of the capabilities of the troops on both sides, I will spend about an hour on average putting together a scenario that will, ideally, give a well balanced and fun game. Since I write down all my scenarios, I can go through and recycle from old ideas as needed. In this manner, my games are usually pretty enagaging and enjoyable and no one ever complains about them.

On the other hand, simply selecting troops from a points driven force list (even if it means getting a game going quickly) has all the appeal of taking a cheese grater to my knuckles.

My .02.

Jason

[This wasn't a thread asking for a debate.]

HA!

You've been on TMP for… 7 years? Surely you must know that you could've posted a thread asking "What color is best for a Red Stop Sign?" and you would've gotten at least 50 posts debating whether or not stopping was a good idea.

It helps to get an idea how the game designer rates certain troops. It also makes thing easier for the gamers as you meet for a fast and fun game of XY points without the need for one person to prepare everything for the others.

And as you don't have to use it I prefer it to be included in the rules.

As for broken point systems its the people who set up the forces so I'd blame them and not the point system.

A points system doesn't (or shouldn't) reflect the capabilities of the troops in historical reality but in the rules. Ideally these SHOULD be the same but I doubt very much if any two sets of rules would have matching capabilities for a given troop type so knowing what the author sees as a measure of their relative capabilities CAN be useful.

Different 'takes' on warfare in any period is why we have so many different rule sets and it is pretty rare for military historians to agree on how capable certain troops really were so that reflects in the variations between rule sets.

No rule set needs to rely on a points system for play so why some posters have to get on their hobby horses about them I can't fathom.

No apologies needed Mike. Just wanted to get the thread back on track. Thanks as always,
Ed

I smiled at the theory that points systems are inherently flawed so we shouldn't ever use any of them. I haven't seen anything designed by man that wasn't inherently flawed somehow but we still use what we need and want and get by. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean we should throw out the idea and not work on improving it if possible.

I like points systems and find them a useful tool. But like any tool they are only as good as the designer and the people using them. I like designing new army lists for games and designing new units/vehicles/whatever for those games. Points values give me a guide to designing things with the proper in game context. One reason I don't play Warhammer/40k anymore is that they threw the logic and formula out of their army design, prefering to make values that "feel right".

The complaint that people abuse the systems isn't really the fault of the system IMO but of the character of the player doing so. Some people play to win over having fun. Nothing a game designer does will change that although good design may be able to minimize the bad effects of this sort of attitude.

Most people I know don't have time to research and design intricate scenarios, or even the desire. But they still want to play and can usually take the time to scribble down lists if they have some guidance. Points values give you a tool for assembling quick battles that are relatively well balanced. Hard to say it any better than Calico Bill did way back at the start.