"Why do people play points based games?" Topic

"One much like basic math, yes. :)"
"Because 2 + 2 IS equal to 2 * 2. You don't "need" either approach, but each works."

What was that about basic maths?
2 + 2 = 2 * 2 very good

but unfortunately 3 + 3 does not equal 3 * 3. Nor does any other number. Why am I suddenly worried about your points calculations?

"Some commander somewhere is making those decisions. Why should we be confined to role playing a specific level of commander?"

Which commander, where?

"A points system does not compel me to tweak every advantage out of the system. That is a flaw in the player's character."

But the fact that a player can do this with a points system is a nasty flaw. With fixed OOBs the player cannot minimax.

"If your experience mirrored that of every other gamer, that might be significant. … it certainly doesn't relate to my gaming experience."

There quite a lot of us who started wargaming in the 60's and 70's still about.

Since it doesn't relate to your gaming experience, it is no wonder that you are blinkered when it comes to points systems.

"Luxury! Was this done in a cardboard box, by any chance?"

Eh???

I feel this conversation has gone on long enough. It is clear to me now that you are on a completely different wavelength and no matter what I say you will not get the point or misunderstand. For example:

I said: "Yet again you miss the point. Look at the OOBs from any historical campaign and you will find a surprisingly consistent structure and composition."

You replied: "When I read Glantz's book on Kursk, he describes the dramatic reduction in unit effectiveness over the course of a single encounter. While the paper OOB may have shown a battalion, the actual units in the field were at far lower levels. And those are the units represented on my table, not flags on a map."

Your response bears no relation whatsoever to the point I was making in my comment. I was talking about consistent structure and composition when one battle is compared to another. You then talk about unit degradation during the course of a single battle. Chalk and cheese!!

You do the same with Arrigo's comment about being stuck with a load of rabble by responding that you like to build an army of "rabble" too. Not the same, though is it? You do it out of choice, Arrigo has it thrust upon him.

Since we can no longer conduct an intelligent conversation on this subject, I suggest we desist.

Arrigo has made some excellent summations of the main points of this discussion, particularly since presumably English is not his first language. Thanks for your support Arrigo.

I notice no-one else has rallied to your support, Bob

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

"Well, the indelible impression left by being forced to play with 20mm Russians in a 15mm game when I have a trunk of nicely done up 15mm Russian stuff was part of it. :)"

Now this is stretching everything… like a guy suing medieval knight as roman cavalry in a tournament… again this is a reason why I prefer to avoid complete unknown people (or perfectly known ones sometime). still gaming etiquette would require the organizer to enquiry about troops available to the player to cover the gaps in his collection and have them contributing (we known that we like to play with our pieces).

Arrigo

a

I have quite enjoyed watching Bob bitch-slap Mike "argue for argument's sake" Snorbens half to death. I haven't rallied to Bob's cause because he hasn't needed it one whit.

The whole issue here really comes down to completely different playing situations. Snorbens gets together a few times a year with his group (of 50 or 100, he can't decide which) and Bob goes to the game store every week or so for pick up games with 6-8 others. Points work FAR better for this sort of outing. If a get together is planned every few months then of COURSE it works well to have a big scenario planned-- it's much like our big conventions here in the US. I game master at these functions and play test the hell out of my games before I ever go in order to make sure that they work well and will be fun for the players. But in the US we also have a heck of a lot more gaming stores that supply tables on which to play. Until my regular hang out closed recently I did much the same thing. Occasionally I did run scenarios for people but most other weeks everybody brought an army of a proscribed points value and had at it with whomever they wanted to play against. Surprise! Both worked equally well!

At home I play scenarios almost exclusively. This in no way invalidates the use of points to get a good, fun pick-up game together, nor will it ever no matter how hard MS rails against it. Gamers will continue to use this very useful "useless" means of getting a game set up as long as there are dice to roll.

Which is really the point of this entire thread.

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] but unfortunately 3 + 3 does not equal 3 * 3. Nor does any other number. Why am I suddenly worried about your points calculations?

Unless you're honestly saying that the same results can't be achieved with addition as with multiplication, I have to think you're grasping at straws here. If two calculations yield the same result, the decision of which is best to use depends on circumstance.

[…] Which commander, where?

Unless you think those assemblages of troops and materiel arrive in the theater spontaneously, armies are moved about at random and units tasked to missions based on gathering for tea parties, I have to think you realize that most of these movements are guided by a level of command somewhere.

[…] But the fact that a player can do this with a points system is a nasty flaw. With fixed OOBs the player cannot minimax.

But the GM/designer/dad can. Someone cited a far better example than I in this very thread. Perhaps you missed that? Human failings are human failings. Even with a tightly controlled scenario, a powergamer will still try to eke out advantages in the game. If you try to put in so many controls that weaseling is impossible, you run the risk of making the experience less enjoyable for the earnest players. Even with that, the ability to to create powerlists can be limited with some basic parameters controlling list creation, with or without a supporting points system. Most WW2 games I am familiar with do use historical OOB as a starting point, and put some limits on support options based on historical availability. Far from weasel-proof, but it does provide guidelines.

[…] Since it doesn't relate to your gaming experience, it is no wonder that you are blinkered when it comes to points systems.

Blinkered? Hardly. I have already stated that a well done complex scenario can be quite enjoyable. We're mostly disagreeing on whether a complex scenario is automatically better than a points-based game simply because of how it was created.

"Luxury! Was this done in a cardboard box, by any chance?"

Eh???

The Monty Python reference: YouTube link

Your response bears no relation whatsoever to the point I was making in my comment. I was talking about consistent structure and composition when one battle is compared to another. You then talk about unit degradation during the course of a single battle. Chalk and cheese!!

Which does make me wonder why you responded with that in response to my discussion of variations in force compositions from day to day.

[…] You do the same with Arrigo's comment about being stuck with a load of rabble by responding that you like to build an army of "rabble" too. Not the same, though is it? You do it out of choice, Arrigo has it thrust upon him.

Not at all the same. In my case, I've chosen to do so on a particular day, based on my own thoughts on what that rabble should consist of. Or I can decide to try something else. I do not consider Freedom From Choice a desirable game attribute.

Since we can no longer conduct an intelligent conversation on this subject, I suggest we desist.

You'll be back. You ALWAYS come back. :)

Arrigo has made some excellent summations of the main points of this discussion, particularly since presumably English is not his first language. Thanks for your support Arrigo.

Is it? I had no idea, nor do I consider that germane to this discussion. He made his points quite clearly, and I responded in kind… hopefully as clearly. I consider dialog to be a two-way exchange, not simple espousal of one's views as the one true way.

I notice no-one else has rallied to your support, Bob

Why on earth would or should they (but thanks, Naz!) This isn't a reality TV show. There's no island to be voted off of, unless of course, we garner the ire of The Editor.

I quite enjoy our little exchanges. They're good for helping me clarify my views for those occasions where there is a serious discussion going on.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Don't go annoying the mice now. (That's a Hitchiker's reference.) See you again soon.

- Bob

Arrigo wrote:

[…] Now this is stretching everything… like a guy suing medieval knight as roman cavalry in a tournament… again this is a reason why I prefer to avoid complete unknown people (or perfectly known ones sometime).

It was mostly disappointing, since I had gone to some effort to make the event. I do generally play with a small circle of friends, and indeed, several of them attended the event.

I also participated in a complex scenario run by a guy that I have played against a few times and have a lot of respect for. Despite that, he made a few deployment decisions that drove me bonkers. I took no issue with his choice of units, but I would have preferred to put my anti-tank guns in a position better suited to covering the infantry in trenches. Now I thoroughly enjoyed that game, but I definitely would have enjoyed it more had I been able to make a few decisions on my own… and not had to listen to the cackling of the German players as they (finally) broke my first line. I was happy to play it his way, but not too many times.

- Bob

nazrat wrote:

[…] I game master at these functions and play test the hell out of my games before I ever go in order to make sure that they work well and will be fun for the players. But in the US we also have a heck of a lot more gaming stores that supply tables on which to play. Until my regular hang out closed recently I did much the same thing. Occasionally I did run scenarios for people but most other weeks everybody brought an army of a proscribed points value and had at it with whomever they wanted to play against. Surprise! Both worked equally well!

Thanks for your insights, Naz! It's always good to hear from others who have experience with both sides of an issue.

Thanks for the support, too. I'm sure Mike's a good guy. I'm viewing all this with a bit of humor, but it is interesting to take these things out to a conclusion.

- Bob

Hey, we'll get 'er done someday!

But dude! You blew your cue! :)

- Bob

You wouldn't happen to be anywhere near Worcester, MA this weekend, would you? We've got an event going on.

Ah yes, I recall now. If only I could scrounge up some work in that area again!

for the records,

I am italian, but I live from september 2007 in london stydying\working at King's College… so English is not my native language, but I think it is improving (also thanks to exposure to TMP!)

Bob, sometime getting less than optimal forces or disposition is more interesting. It is more challenging. Once I played twice in a a multi-day scenario of chikamauga at a german-british game show. I took cahrge of the union with a desperate situation already unfolding (previous players actions) and recovered it somewhat. The gone to bed… the nest day after playing other games I was back at chikamuaga with union lines again shattering. Ok it was desperate, but it was fun.

On of the best part of scenairo games is that they force you to face sub-optimal (british understatement) situations that you will never face with point system. Also you see less sexy kit on the table and more run of the mill (if no ran away from the mill) one.

Apart from broken systems and power gamers the other problem of points is that you have more limited and "standard" scenarios and often point system break creativity in the player's mind.

finally almost all point system brokle down when they move from armies to terrain… and it is the terrain that often made or broke a game.

Arrigo

Arrigo

Arrigo wrote:

[…] I am italian, but I live from september 2007 in london stydying\working at King's College… so English is not my native language, but I think it is improving (also thanks to exposure to TMP!)

Ah, my regular gaming partner is also from Italy! When he and his son start talking in Italian, I feel like the Japanese listening in on the Navajo Code Talkers. I'll have to secretly start learning the language. :)

Your English is excellent, and I would never have noticed. I'm really not sure why it was brought up in the first place!

Bob, sometime getting less than optimal forces or disposition is more interesting. It is more challenging. […] On of the best part of scenairo games is that they force you to face sub-optimal (british understatement) situations that you will never face with point system. Also you see less sexy kit on the table and more run of the mill (if no ran away from the mill) one.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding of how points systems are often used. While a same-points match-up is definitely the most common, there are variations: Some use points-based rules that require each player to have two lists, then use the smaller or larger, depending on the scenario. Others provide scoring bonuses if a smaller value is used. Yet others allow the winners in a campaign game to gain a few points, but otherwise use their reduced starting list for the following games.

Even in a matched-points system, requirements to hold units off as reserves, with no sure guarantee that they will arrive, forces the player to do some tactical thinking.

One of the broken scenarios I played was a blast for my son and I, as we faced 4,000+ points of German armor with a starting force of 2,000 points of Soviet infantry. It would fit the what I referred to as a "complex" scenario, because the entire game, including our forces, were fixed by the GM. (As I said, points and scenarios, even complex ones, are not mutually exclusive!)

Instead of attacking the besieged town with 1,500 points of German infantry in it, we decided to stop the tanks coming to their relief… ultimately with great success owing to some tenacity, and a few last-second reinforcements. The only problem was that the guys up in the town end of the table couldn't do a lot, so half the attendees didn't get as much action. With a bit more testing, I think it would be an excellent scenario. The table was so long that players at one end couldn't really impact the other before the end of the day.

Apart from broken systems and power gamers the other problem of points is that you have more limited and "standard" scenarios and often point system break creativity in the player's mind.

That can be true, but it definitely isn't in every case. Flames of War provides 8 standard 'generic' scenarios that play very differently, depending on what the players bring to the table. We frequently set up terrain, then dice for the scenario before each game, so nobody quite knows what to expect. The resulting game can definitely put players in some unexpected and challenging situations. Varying the terrain adds even more variety. And there are quite a few quality user (fanboy if you prefer) contributed scenarios out there as well.

I do agree that you can get in a rut if the group doesn't actively try new things. I've seen some groups continually play the same bloody scenario play at the same points with the same lists game after game, and that does get tedious. But I have also seen some beautifully crafted tables created by guys putting on complex scenarios, then playing that exact same scenario every time I see them afterwards. I'm just saying that getting into a rut is not unique to any approach to putting together a game.

finally almost all point system brokle down when they move from armies to terrain… and it is the terrain that often made or broke a game.

None of the point systems I am familiar with try to take terrain differences into account with the points. The points are based on raw stats, accounting for mobility, armor and weaponry and such detail. This does mean that the player fielding the supertanks is very likely to find themselves at a significant disadvantage if they have to cross difficult terrain. A weaker (lower points) infantry unit may well be indomitable in that same terrain -- something I take advantage of whenever I can!

The only real difference I am seeing in our approaches is how the starting lineup of miniatures is assembled, which is but one factor that goes into a game. Terrain, the basic tactical scenario and objectives and variable factors come into play regardless of who builds the starting OOB. I think we (both) agree that a lot of variety in all of these factors is a good thing. I am just pushing back on the notion that any game using points is 'less right' in some way.

Thanks for your thoughts, Arrigo!

- Bob

You are faced with the same situation that Waller faced on 29 June 1644. Now see if you can do better than him.

All four pages of this thread comes down to this point.

I don't care. That battle of 1644 was already fought, it already has an outcome. I know what happens already, so what's the point in replaying it? It's like watching the same movie five times and trying to be surprised at the ending.

If you want to do it all over then go for it. Others want to try the same battle with diffrent troops. Others want to play battles that didn't happen.

Either way you need a limit, points or OOB, they are just limits. Otherwise I could use all the figures I have and so could you, which would be facinating but maybe not fun.

"Either way you need a limit, points or OOB, they are just limits."

No, points are not "just limits" unless you also include minima and maxima for each troop type. Not all points systems do this.

Mike Snorbens wrote:

No, points are not "just limits" unless you also include minima and maxima for each troop type. Not all points systems do this.

A maximum points value is still a limit, even without setting bounds on each troop type. It just sets a limit for the entire force. That is the sort of "free for all" that I understood you decried, isn't it?

Having such bounds is common, either setting a minimum required, or maximum allowed by unit type or specific types, or a restriction on points (or percentage of points) that can be expended on specific types.

I thought you'd be back. :)

- Bob