"What should points systems try to achieve" Topic

When putting together a points system, a designer should, as his first priority, in order to produce the results most likely to please me (the voter in this poll):

A. Design the system so that, as much as possible, different armies with the same points values make a balanced set of opponents.

B. Design the system so that, as much as possible, armies have a balance of equipment and unit types that would reasonably have been fielded in the historical (or fictional prototype) place and time depicted.

C. Press the delete key and leave the section out.

Don't forget D. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

- Monk

D. to be used in campaigns so that, even when things might not be balanced, the players think things are kinda fair.

D. Spend as little time playtesting the points system as possible in an effort to write more irrelevant callouts in the side margin.

E: Who cares? Use 'em, don't use 'em, but for the love of God don't try to drearily dissect every damn thing in order to reduce it to its lowest common denominator.

I have added a few pedantic weasel words to better define what size is being fitted,

A points system should lull the gamer into believing that ANY force in the "Army Lists" has a fair chance to win.
The educated gamer will realize that there are SOME "killer" armies, but hope there are no hopeless ones.
You can't ask for more than that.

"don't try to drearily dissect every damn thing in order to reduce it to its lowest common denominator."

I think I know what you mean, but would be interested in particularly dreary examples.

WRG, and even better, Newbury

I would go with "A". But a point system should only be used for balance. Nothing else.

But I also play games that does not use a point system, it can be frustrating, but fun nonetheless…

I take my hat off to those who write point systems.

Recently I wrote a set of rules called Ager Sanguinis. The rules are a good set of rules but were published without army lists. After they came out I was lucky, as they met with quite a warm reception. But everyone I spoke to about them asked the same question: Will you do army lists. I have done the Christian list and it has been published and I'm doing the Muslim lists presently. They do have a point system (of sorts) but they are not intended to give two armies balanced for effect, just armies balanced to for their time and origin with enough variables to make them interresting. Even though this is the case, I still dread encountering the pedant – because I don't know it all and might have got some bits wrong.

Pedants are wargamers of the worst kind. I wish they would, as they find fault with everyone elses work, go off and write their own rules, army lists, point systems, painting guides, etc.

We have, if we are not one ourselves, met one. They say things like "You painted it using Funcken – Funcken is wrong." To which you should reply "Well I use Funcken so Funcken off, pedant!"

I take my hat off to those who prescribe not only army lists, but a balancing point system to go with them in their rules – they are braver than I am, they are laying themselves open to be door-stepped by every pedant out there.

Try to keep a semblance of balance . Especially for fictional games .

It took me about 30 hours of spreadsheet work (not counting playtesting) to develop the point system for Clash of Dreadnoughts.

I'm pretty pleased with the result, but also point out its limitations in the rules – the primary ones being that the more ships you include in your comparison the more accurate it gets, and comparing ships of different types (light cruisers vs. battleships) doesn't take into account the intended roles for each. . . thus its really oriented towards comparing ships of the same type against each other, or capabilities of entire fleets rather than individual ships.

Of course, for Clash of Dreadnoughts I have the advantage that the points are based off objective, quantifiable ship data so the points can be mathematically derived without need for subjective judgement calls -- many genres of wargame don't enjoy this benefit.

Dreadnought,

Yes, I guess it is much easier to mathematically assess the points value of ships. They tend not to fight up hill, from behind walls, etc. This is why I congratulate those who write points systems for land warfare for their bravery, no honestly, I do.

Thanks olicana, I was wondering how long it would take this time for the points folks to start insulting those who don't use them.
--
Tim

As it happens, except in campaigns that use an army strength point system to deal with attrition etc. (see Pike and Plunder below) I don't use points systems. My one off games tend to be scenario led, and as I always field both armies I just set them up so they feel right or are historically based. (See my blog – note no points mentioned).

pikeandplunder.blogspot.com

olicanalad.blogspot.com

My thoughts were more along the lines of expressing how hard it must be to come up with a point system that can be used for competitions (something else I don't do) and that most of the contestants feel happy with. Of course some rule writers will not spend much time doing this and will base their system on what felt right during play testing (limited or otherwise), but I'm sure that a good deal more of those who do this do so very carefully.

I was also drawing the attention of gamers to how their sometimes strident views come across to those who write rules in general, as few rule authors could be described as full time scholar / rule writers.

Points systems will always be a topic of dispute, but there is no right or wrong here. Especially in competition games, unless both sides are to turn up with exactly the same army, a point system is essential. Like competition games or loathe the idea of them (as I do) there is no escape from a points system, and I applaud any writer with the guts to put one in his rules because they are so easily discredited by the pedant.

James

A point system with finer than 1% resolution (ie. point differences of less than 1% of the high end units) is probably trying too hard. This includes considerations for point differences between opponents of less than 1% of force size.

Games with more than two point systems are definitely trying too hard (Battletech designs can be compared on cash price, tonnage, and calculated BV, for example).

In campaign settings that include infrastructure and non-combat functions, units with two point values may be a requirement. These may be seperately figured (like SFB) or a simple multiple (BFG).

So what does a point system need to do?

A. Provide a reasonable feel for balance in "pick up" games (including tournaments).

B. Provide a guideline for special circumstances and victory conditions in a set scenario.

Because point values almost always show the biases of the designers regarding how a particular unit is "supposed" to be used, complete accuracy is impossible. Anyone expecting or demanding "complete accuracy" has an agenda, and it probably doesn't include actual balance.

BattleTech was magnificent with all the methods to calculate points, each had strengths and weaknesses. I have shared in other posts some fabulous games created because of the point system of BattleTech. Were each of the methods flawed? Sure. Did it lead to some wonderful games? Yes.

I thank the game designers at FASA for all the hard work they put into those point calculations, going out on a limb and exposing themselves to the pedants James speaks of. They gifted me with the best gaming of my life.

"I thank the game designers at FASA for all the hard work they put into those point calculations"

A shame they didn't put more work into the rest of the rules. BT's core rules had some real howlers right into the Clan invasion.

"That huge strongpoint building, constructed with tens of thousands of tons of reinforced concrete, steel framing, and armor plate? Might as well be made of paper for all the resistance it'll provide to the first Urbanmech that wants to walk through it."

And don't get me started on the steaming pile that was the DFA rule for the first five years (and five printings).

@Farstar,
In keeping with another thread ( TMP link ), you make a very perceptive point about the shameful, steaming pile of rules used by BattleTech.

If the rule doesn't answer questions about its use, its badly written. We dissected it extensively back in the day. When the half-written rule failed, repeatedly, to be revised or completed by FASA in the multiple printings pre-Clan, we gave up.

Marvelous game, hampered by its writers.

When I later participated in playtesting for another company, the experience made it obvious in retrospect that FASA was skipping at least one rules testing step. Later games made it increasingly apparent that this was a FASA issue, not specific to Battletech.

FASA had great ideas, and I still play or would play most of what they published (won't touch the rules for ST:RPG with a ten-foot redshirt), but I would recommend never judging a FASA game solely by its (probably broken in some key but subtle ways) core rulebook.

This hobby has its share of "steaming piles", some of them critically acclaimed. To claim otherwise is its own form of snobbish superiority complex.

Some of them use point systems, too…

So true. Only a snob would not rightfully acknowledge a critically acclaimed steaming pile of a game.

I have created a new thread for discussion of the game design of BattleTech in an effort to not derail this interesting thread started by Lentulus.

TMP link

Do you consider the entire hobby of miniatures wargaming to be flawless and above reproach? No? Then you are not the snob I was refering to.

My original point for this thread is that, with three different metrics for comparison, games like Battletech transcend boardgame point value comparisons and land firmly in "fiddly RPG" territory. Since that's where BT started (pre-publication, as an in-house Traveller variant) this is hardly surprising, but it is a bit much for a wargame.

Of course, I've seen the same level of fiddly applied to SFB. The game has two point scales built in. For most ships they track together, but a few special purpose ships have different "Economic" and "Battle" values. The game remains a wargame because, as written, it stops there. I've run into a few "box counters" who take the practice to extremes, however, and who will cheerfully tell anyone they can pin down about which ships the designers "obviously got wrong".

In my opinion, a points system should only attemtp to measure relative tactical effectiveness of units (as best it can).

Enforcing appropriate forces and doctrines (Lentulus point B) is a job for the army list, not the points cost.

As for Farstar's point about Battletech's multiple 'points systems (tonnage, cash, CV and BV) only the latter was intended by the designers as a measure of tactical effectiveness. Cash is obviously an in-game economic measure of use in campaigns, and IIRC Combat Value was originally introuduced as a scoring system for tournaments (so many points for shooting off a laser, so many more for destroying arm actuators, etc).

BattleTech had 3 Point Systems (CV, BV, and BV2)…

CV came out in the late 80's. It was used by MechForce as both a scoring system and often used to balance forces. I can't remember if FASA intended the later use, but it was widely done. It was widely recognized as a flawed system for force balance. Many gamers used tonnage to balance forces or wrote our own point systems to meet the need.

With _Maximum Tech_ (a rulebook published in 1997) "Battle Values" were introduced to measure relative tactical effectiveness. With _Total Warfare_ (a rulebook published in 2006) "Battle Values" were revised with a new formula called BV2. Some still prefer the BV metrics over the BV2 values.

I think that attempts by the various publishers of BattleTech to refine, revise and improve these various metrics of measuring relative tactical effectiveness are clearly an example of an adoption of Lentulus' option A.

Obviously, I am in favor of option A.

"Funcken is wrong"

My own reply tends to be "You appear to have confused my toy soldiers with my PhD thesis."

Personally, btw, I prefer B: A system that will do its best give me a quick way to deploy a reasonable force balance for the time and place.

I have a theory.

I think the rules and point build systems aren't the problem. Board and table top gamers have a snobby hardcore component of their fanbase that tends to be socially maladroit, judgemental, inconsistent, confrontational,irrationaly territorial, yet needy. They attempt to pull everybody into jumpy, thin skinned factions that hiss abusively at each other over relatively mior disagreements stemming from their various utopian schemes to find or crossbreed a perfect game.

You always have people who play the game to hang out with each other, people who collect the game for dissection and display, people who get some competitive identity out of playing (tournament freaks), and those people who try to 'live it' and build a life around it and as a result experience a sort of mental agony when it fails to "take them away" in the sense of a Calgon bubble bath commercial. If it doesn't "take them away" or fill a void in their hearts then it must be broken. If it is broken, then it must be fixed. To fix it you need ideas. Anyone who doesn't like some particular idea on how to fix it is quickly deemed a fool or an enemy of the spirit of the game.

The hardcore 'lifer' players exist in layers of increasingly concentrated " hardcoreness" and the more hardcore often spend more money than the less hard core so sometimes these people get catered to by gaming companies. The various hardcores unfortunately do not agree on very much. They confuse their own feelings with an audience concensus. They might feel that a change has either ruined or saved a game. This leads to games, over time, getting pulled in multiple directions until they are hard to learn to play, requiring a lot of books and maybe even an index to get the "whole" game. This leads to a need for a scouring or a reboot to either bring back fans who left or to win new ones who thought that the older version of the game was horribly broken and unplayable.

Some companies actually harness/exploit this cycle of 'bloat and gut and then bloat some more' to get everyone to either refresh their purchases every three to five years or to gather new players as the older ones drop out or get too crotchety to make the game look good.

Of course, that's how a niche market USUALLY works.

I think I've lost a lot of my old fanboy "nads" in the last couple of years. I guess I'm getting older and the hormones are thinning out and I'm losing certain territorial urges rather like a neutered cat.

I still collect games and play them but I no longer expect as much from them. I no longer try to obnoxiously promote or defend them too much and I try not to think badly of people who reject my ministrations. :) It has made playing games much more relaxing. Of course I don't buy quite as much stuff any more either.

I do still get into silly arguments from time to time but it's more of a reflex than any real involvement.

Games and rules may well be demonstrably better than one another but to me it's no longer worth causing a stink about.

If I can read and understand a rule set and it lets me feel like I am doing something that has an effect on the game and it gives me a vague sense of what it's meant to represent or just serves as a 'beer and pretzel' social lubrication then that's plenty good enough for me.

F. Design a system that won't be noticed by the people who obsess about how terrible point systems are, to reduce the thread count on TMP.
-Kle.

"Thanks olicana, I was wondering how long it would take this time for the points folks to start insulting those who don't use them."

I've read over all the posts up to Olicana's, Tim, and I STILL don't see any that are insulting to the "pointmentally challenged". He does mention pedants, but that isn't directed at anybody in particular, just people who are picky. And there are TONS of those in pour hobby…

@nazrat,

"our hobby"

:)

Heh.