"Why do people play points based games?" Topic

I was reading the BF news post and once again I am left scratching my head wondering why the blazes would anyone care about points? The act of assigning what can only be described as arbitrary values to units, men, machines etc. to me makes no sense when trying to recreate a historic actions (even if it's what if scenarios) . Can anyone ever point out to me where two sides were ever equally matched? And if they are where is the challenge in that? In those cases chances are the game is decided by the roll of the dice. And BF players please don't talk about the tactical skill of the commander as I've played the game and it is a game that plays the rules, not the period. To me it's like saying a Monopoly winner is a knowledgeable financial wiz.
I understand points systems for games like Full Thrust or WH40K, but what about the challenge of having your platoon of engineers hold out against a company of Falschrimjaegers supported by armor? Or your panzergrenadiers outnumbered 3 to 1, attack that Bolshevik Guards company?
Please explain to me the fascination or obsession with point systems in games? I just don't get it.

but what about the challenge of having your platoon of engineers hold out against a company of Falschrimjaegers supported by armor?

But where is the challenge then for the player getting the overwhelming strenght?

…Beats me. I've never understoond it either.

"Please explain to me the fascination or obsession with point systems in games? I just don't get it."

Couldn't agree more!!

"I understand points systems for games like Full Thrust or WH40K"

I don't see any need for points even with game systems such as these! Both are analogues of historical gaming periods.

So EITHER you spend the time developing a scenario, play-testing it, tweaking it, finding the balance giving the outnumbered defenders a trick or a position or even a time limit that will give them a chance …

… or you rely on a point system.

Your goal is to sit down to play a game where both players have a reasonable chance of winning. If you can't draw from extensive play balance, then you can instead rely on point balance to offer you a good game.

"But where is the challenge then for the player getting the overwhelming strength?"

With such an unbalanced scenario, it is a race against time. The stronger player must seek to defeat the smaller force within a given time period.

"So EITHER you spend the time developing a scenario, play-testing it, tweaking it,"

Why do the "pro points" people think that scenario generation is so hard? It usually takes me about 10 minutes to put together a scanario.

"finding the balance giving the outnumbered defenders a trick or a position or even a time limit that will give them a chance …"

That's the point – you don't have to "find a balance".

"Your goal is to sit down to play a game where both players have a reasonable chance of winning."

Define "reasonable chance" and how you determine it. And actually the goal is not to "play a game where both players have a reasonable chance of winning." but rather to play a game where the gaming experience is enjoyable (dare I say, fun?).

"can instead rely on point balance to offer you a good game."

Since most (all?) points systems are inherently broken, why do you think "point balance" will give each player a "reasonable chance"?

Good Points systems are useful for assessing balance of scenarios and then you can assess what actual victory conditions would (or should) be. This is especially true if you are disguising existig scenarios from historical events. e.g. you transfer market garden from holland to the eastern front with soviet paratroop brigades seizing bridges over the volga and a guards corp going up Hell's steppes…

bad points systems are worse than useless to anyone who wants to play a game as an extension of your interest in warfare as the points system distorts the weapons balance.

Both of the above assume that the players use the points system to pick their forces.

the best use of points is when the scenario designer uses them to select the balance of forces, especially for the type of "transfered" scenario.

I have a feeling this one will run and run … it usually does when we get onto this subject!

Its the logical conclusion when competition outweighs the play aspect of gaming. Tourney-itis.
Ah, that sounds too negative…
It also makes pick up games with strangers easier: Roll on generic scenerio table, great, got yer 1000pts, good, let's go.
Meeples and Miniatures had a great podcast a while back talking about the differences between US and UK gaming. IIRC the points style/competitive gaming was the more 'US' style, which makes more sense given the general trend of gaming in actual shops(GW far and away the majority) as opposed to clubs.

"This is especially true if you are disguising existing scenarios from historical events. e.g. you transfer Market Garden from Holland to the Eastern Front with Soviet paratroop brigades seizing bridges over the Volga and a guards corps going up Hell's steppes…"

You don't need a points system to do that.

Points allow a level playing field so that it is down to the ability of the player not who has the biggest army.
Much like chess, that game uses equal forces but is no less a good game for it.

"It also makes pick up games with strangers easier: Roll on generic scenerio table, great, got yer 1000pts, good, let's go."

I have never understood why people play these so called "pick up" games, when with a little thought a more interesting scenario can be put together easily and quickly.

I don't care about point values and army lists. They don't give a balanced game, anyway.

I make instead cards with different historical units. Some are very good, other average, other weak. I shuffle the cards then draw two or three or four, depending if attacker / defender, or if novice / expert player etc.

For example one Tank unit, one artillery unit, one Recon unit, one armoured infantry unit, two infantry units, one anti-tank unit, one air support.

You can have many different forces with three cards, from a armoured task force (one Tank unit, one armoured infanty unit, one air support) to a static defence force (one infantry unit, one anti tank unit, one artillery unit) to a challenging "mix" of units.

You can let the players choose one card (usually with their favourite unit) or draw them completely blind.

An old method that can be applied to whatever period and level of wargaming. Quicker and much more interesting than points IMHO

"I have never understood why people play these so called "pick up" games, when with a little thought a more interesting scenario can be put together easily and quickly."

People are different. Live and let live I say, be not like clay the snob.

"Points allow a level playing field so that it is down to the ability of the player not who has the biggest army."

No they don't, unless (like chess) you have exactly equal forces and the terrain is mirrored across the centre line.

As for chess, the knight and the bishop are usually valued the same at 3 points. But would you be willing to play chess where you have 4 knights and no bishops against an opponent who has 4 bishops and no knights? The points are still equal …

Agree or disagree that was not the question, rather why do people do it?

The answer, they like to as described above.
So let them play their games their way and enjoy them.

@Mike S

I agree with you that the bones for a good scenario can be thrashed out in about 15 min. After that if given an hour or so to draw a map and lay out terrain, looking at TOE for the scenario and what needs to happen I can have a solid scenario that just needs a tweak or two to be good to go.

I have a friend who cant design a scenario to save his eternal soul. He thinks storyline linear, which makes him a great background writer for campaigns, but hinders with "making" a good scenario. As he gains experience and learns, from talking to people and watching others, he is starting to "get it" on how to make a good scenario.

Which leads to my theory on why points based gaming. A) It is a quick and easy way to get two forces out on the table quickly when time is of a concern. B) It gets around the 101 Tigers vs. 101 JS games, unless you are wanting to play that. C) It gives the perception of a fair game at the start, which through your skill in taking advantage of terrain at set up, so on, so on, and so forth allows you to show off your generalship skills. (Not that I agree with that statement as truth, it is just my theory.)

I guess the most important thing that we need to look at when we talk about this is that people are rolling dice, having fun, and actually interacting with one another. No matter if you agree or disagree with points based gaming.

Point systems are for gamers seeking entertainment. Scenarios are used by wargamers pursuing a hobby.IMO

And actually the goal is not to "play a game where both players have a reasonable chance of winning." but rather to play a game where the gaming experience is enjoyable (dare I say, fun?).

I could not agree more. If how you get there involves points, so be it, but the game is the thing, not the outcome.

Why do people play points based games?

I presume, because they enjoy them.

Why do you play non-points based games?
-Kle.

"This is especially true if you are disguising existing scenarios from historical events. e.g. you transfer Market Garden from Holland to the Eastern Front with Soviet paratroop brigades seizing bridges over the Volga and a guards corps going up Hell's steppes…"

You don't need a points system to do that.

But it helps, when you are comparing non-alike vehicles and troop qualities.

I would say points are for some vague sense of a fair fight, especially where each guy brings his own troops. Hard to design an elegant scenario if you don't know what forces you will have available to you.
My nit wiht points systems is the tendency to hae a hole in them. I think GW does this deliberately – create a unit that is devastating for its cost, but expensive and new to churn product. I built a fallschirmjager force for FOW and gave it Stug IIIs for support because that is what they would have, but the Stug is fairly expensive.
In my view a point system is to keep fighting values essentially similar, but should lead to a sensible force. In WWII terms even an armored assault was heavliy supported by infantry, probably either mechanized or motorized to keep up

"I have a feeling this one will run and run … it usually does when we get onto this subject!"

And YOU'RE the one who generally keeps it going! Almost by yourself sometimes… 8)=

I agree with those that say people play them because they LIKE them. I do use points occasionally, but mainly run scenarios. I've had lots of fun with both and that's the bottom line.

Since Battlefront was mentioned in the OP I will add that many of the latest FoW books are scenario based and just give you the historical units to use. Points are not involved at all. Tournaments are different matters entirely-- points really are essential to running them.

Yes, it's true that with enough experience, it's possible to 'throw together' a good scenario somewhat quickly. However, not everyone has the time nor inclination to develop that experience, and even then, the mix of players may not all agree on what makes a 'good' scenario. More than once, I've played 'historical' scenarios that were based on the assumption that I'd run my troops into the machine guns.

A points system lets two unfamiliar players meet up and play quickly. That doesn't mean they're incapable of playing a scenario, but rather only that they just want to get a game going quickly. A well tested points system is also a simple way of sizing a game. If we've only got a couple of hours, play a lower points game. If we've got some extra time, allow higher points.

A points system can also be played and tested by the full community of gamers. Players of 'your' scenario are dependent on your skills and thoroughness (e.g. making sure the object actually can be taken during a game). That's not to say that scenarios can't be tested and validated, but that most games tend not to include all that many that have been. I do wish all the publishers who go on about how superior their games are due to lack of a points system would bother to include some well tested scenarios along with them!

Finally, with a points system, you have only yourself to blame for a poor game. If playing someone else's scenario and things go badly, it's clearly their stupid scenario that's at fault. We are gamers.

- Bob

you spend the time developing a scenario, play-testing it, tweaking it, finding the balance giving the outnumbered defenders a trick or a position or even a time limit that will give them a chance

That sounds like an idiotic waste of time.

Seriously, though, Just design a ing scenario, and play it! That's what we've always done. You're making it sound like the point balancing and analysis some of these fellows who go on about point systems applied to scenario design. Nope. You need to change your mind set, I'm afraid.
--
Tim

But it helps, when you are comparing non-alike vehicles and troop qualities.

This is the folly of point systems, for armour/infantry wargames at least.

What are you comparing with a points system?

Movement ability of very different terrain types? What terrain types?

Anti-armour capability? At what ranges? Short or long? Terrain has a lot to do with things there.

Anti-infantry capability?

Command flexibility?

You can't apply a single point value to cover all of this. And to those who say, "no, no, a point value is an overall rating" one has to ask overall as compared to what?

I concede that you an certainly make an effective point system, but one that has a single value to me points out the deficiencies in the rule set being used. A proper points system needs to be multi-deimensional, not just one set of points.

And I've never seen a point system like that, though there may be one out there, somewhere.
--
Tim

Why does my dog eat socks but leave other clothing alone? Why does my friend prefer blonds and I like brunettes? Why does my GF hate Italian food but love Chinese? Why does my 3 year old niece insist on not wearing shoes outdoors? The simple answer is, because I like them. Not to the exclusion of other systems, but I have no problem playing them either.

You don't have to play 'equal' points.

Just an example:

BKC uses points in a campaign system. The number of points you get is relative to your opponent's points and the ratios (2:1; 3:2 etc.) are set by the scenario / situation you are playing.

I think 'simple' rules tend to lend themselves more to points.

mjc

Ditto Bird wrote:

[…] Seriously, though, Just design a ***ing scenario, and play it! grin That's what we've always done.

To be honest, that's why we use a points system. Just let each player put together his list according to whatever parameters we've agreed to before the game and get playing. It's not rocket science.

You're making it sound like the point balancing and analysis some of these fellows who go on about point systems applied to scenario design.

True. But a slapped together scenario can result in just as unbalanced and broken a game as a slapped together points-based game!

I just want a game. I'll gladly try anything, but if you're going to tell me that scenario games are vastly superior, please make sure the scenario has been tested a few times!

In practice, I find most games to be a combination of points, mostly to size the game for duration (we only have so much time), AND scenario. They are not mutually exclusive, and you can freely adjust the balance to suit taste and time available. The combination of a well tested points system and a set of well tested scenarios is a winner. (Well, for me anyhow.)

- Bob

"You need to change your mind set, I'm afraid."

why?
can't you accept people like different things?

Nope, he can't, apparently. It's his way or the highway. 8)=

I'm reminded of being in a game shop in Alexandria VA back in the '70s and hearing a puzzled 14-year-old telling one of his buddies "These guys play D&D without modules. Can you do that?" I wonder how many people who started gaming within the past 15-20 years play point-based games entirely because this is the way popular game publishers have been telling them wargames were supposed to be played? Just a thought.

LT

I'm not a pointillist. I can think for myself (as long as my wife doesn't object).

I'm not a pointillist. I can think for myself (as long as my wife doesn't object).

If this is the donlowry formerly of Metairie LA, I've actually seen him do it. If not, all bets are off.

LT

I have a feeling this one will run and run … it usually does when we get onto this subject!

That's about the only thing said so far that I agree with…

When we play football, do you play sometimes with 12, sometimes with 10 guys on the field?
Do you say, "Hey, let's try out 80 yards to go, down by 4, 76 seconds left on the clock!"
No, you play the game with 11 men on each side, 4 quarters, salary cap in play for the team roster.

Look. I have played Ancients with points. I have played Flames of War with points. I enjoy the experience. I have also played scenarios with both. I enjoyed them too.
So what if the points system is "broken" and unbalanced. So is the NFL with a salary cap. I would rather have Tom Brady than any quarterback named "Trent". As far as the NFL is concerned, things are fair and balanced because all teams field 11 players at a time, and the salary cap and draft are the points system..

Why do some people get so outraged over the fact that people PLAY A GAME different from the way that you play it? Why do you feel so damn superior if you play different from me? I got news for you busters. You are NOT superior in the way you play, and you come across as a beligerent intolerant ass if you try to act like you are. You play your way, and I will play mine. Have fun, because I know that I am.

Why do people use scenarios from books and magazines? Why can't they just make them up on their own?

Because it gives a good starting point. Sometimes that's all it takes and sometimes it's just the first step, depends on what your goal is.

I can tell you that some people who think they do great scenarios are fooling themselves. I've seen some that completely sucked. That's true whether you start with points or not. But if the points help some of these guys start off on the right foot, why complain?

""But it helps, when you are comparing non-alike vehicles and troop qualities.""

"This is the folly of point systems, for armour/infantry wargames at least."

What are you comparing with a points system?

In my example,

Shermans and Churchills with T34/76's and T34/85's to calculate the replacement numbers of vehicles

British, Polish and US para armed with piats and Bazookas with russian paras armed with molitov cocktails, to calculate the replacement number of russian paras.

However, I should say I recaculate all the points values based on game design techniques normally used in Computor game design since wargame designers use "fresh air values" normally. I.E, plucked out of thin air!

you can tell this by the way they are worked out in multiples or part multiples of the most common stand and always rounded out.

"But a slapped together scenario can result in just as unbalanced and broken a game as a slapped together points-based game!"

which is why points values can adapt a balanced scenario across game systems without unintentionally ruining it.

How extreme can this Go?

I have refought the battle of bladesnburg in the war of 1812 as a german bulge attack. And Yes, the germans did end up burning the white House

" But if the points help some of these guys start off on the right foot, why complain?"

Because they can…

I would rather have Tom Brady than any quarterback named "Trent"

Had me laughing out loud.

"Why do people play points based games?"

It's their choice – live with it.

Ive never played any with points. And with alot of people I have seen playing all different kinds of wargames over the years they havent or dont either. So I guess it really doesn't matter to me either way. Robert

Why do some people get so outraged over the fact that people PLAY A GAME different from the way that you play it?

Possibly because those people are violating the purity of the gaming, by straying away from the Holy Word of True Wargaming, thus bringing down the wrath of the Dice Gods upon the world, and inflicting great suffering and misfortune on a most wanton fashion?

This is further on worsened by the impure heathens deviating from the One True Scale, by worshipping their falsely-proportioned lead idols on the altar that is the wargaming table.

Besides, their wicked ways can corrupt others into the same false ways, turning the young and the innocent from the path of righteousness and sacred charts. For great is the temptation of the dark side, and easily is there attracted an inexperienced mind.

no because sometime they can become really annoying, substituting points for brain… too much often the points became the game and they sadden you with their perfect plans to exploit the perfect point combination…

I hate being saddened. It saddens me to become saddened.

I am also saddened by those sad individuals who think that if anyone else plays differently than they do, that it is sad.

But as specified on this thread, there is only one way to do real wargaming:

TMP link

Phew glad I missed that one Griefbringer, looks like worm city.

You may as well ask why people play wargames at all. The answer is pretty much the same.

I enjoy point games because it's fun sitting down with a pencil and paper and trying to design a balanced force that can handle a variety of opponents.

With point games, each player is contributing to the scenario design, instead of relying on a scenario handed down by fiat, either from a book or by another player.

"IIRC the points style/competitive gaming was the more 'US' style, which makes more sense given the general trend of gaming in actual shops(GW far and away the majority) as opposed to clubs".

Really? That surprises me, all the competitive games I can think of are UK/Commonwealth imports: WRG, FoW, GW etc. I can't think of any U.S.-origin rules off-hand that are oriented for tournament play, although there must be some.