"Objectives or Mayhem?" Topic

I recently ran an Ancient Period Cattle Rustling game at a convention. The folks stealing the cows seemed to get in the spirit of things pretty quickly but the folks that owned the cows really only had one objective: "kill the thieves" They did little or nothing to recover the cattle that were being driven off even though that was the objective.

Blitzkrieg Commander campaign games pose a similar issue in that to win the game, sometimes you have to focus on the objective and not on 'winning the battle'.

On a scale of 1 (totally objective oriented – perfectly happy if I don't fire a shot all day) to 10 (hey this is a wargame, I want to see some blood flow and nothing else), where do you rate yourself.

Depends on the day.

Most of the time I try and keep my eye on the objective, but if, say, my forces available are not able to achieve the obejective effectively (an army of horde mummies in a scenario requiring rapid movement), I'll go for blood.

Even if I lose, they'll know they've been in a fight… and who knows, maybe the horse will sing.

Mrs Pumblechook is better than most at keeping her eye on the objective, but sometimes she has a distinct taste for blood, blood, blood, carnage, death, destruction and chocolate.

Hmm – I would rate myself somewhere around 1 – 3.

For me having a fun time is very important, and I like scenario based games, so the objective of the game is more important and killing off 100% of my opponents

Teach a man to recapture a cow and it will only be stolen again. Teach him to kill the thieves and his cows will be safe always.

That's why boardgames usually provide victory points for specific, historically appropriate goals.

I prefer to run games rather than play them – and I always set realistic goals, so "1".

"Mahem"??? Like the mayhem that may result from cross-posting to lots of boards?

Good question, though. Hmm, I may rate a 4 or so.

Objectives are good, but it might be good to know before if a game can be won without resorting to the good old fashioned violence – just to get into a mood for sneakiness and cunning ploys.

Excessive cross-posting on the other hand is just that – excessive. There is a reason why have this place:

TMP link

Maybe 4 as an average, but frankly I can be anywhere from 1-10 depending on the rules and how bad a week I'm having…. I would say I focus better in campaign games than one-offs; it's easier to follow an over-arching plan when that plan has some tangible effect beyond the end of today's game.

I myself am a 2 or so, but I often have teammates in multiplayer games get annoyed with me for not wading into the blood hip deep. Senseless slaughter does have a certain charm.

I'd put myself in at a 1, but I can think of a situation in a campaign where if I'd have fully followed the objective (withdrawl) 4 players would have had nothing much to do for 2 days. If a bad designer gives poorly thought out conditions for a game, sometimes the objectives are not feasible (or desirable)

My question to a player who had his character shoot my character's dog in a "pulp" game:

Me: Why did you shoot my dog???

He: Because he was there.

Objectives. Always objectives and lessons to be taught and learned. If want to play "Hack & Slash", then get out your D&D books. I have never understood the mentality of "Let's line up our troops and have at it, then!"

About a 5….

I try for an objective but if I get a good shot or I can unleash indescribale carnage I'll go off from objective.

Although I will refrain from dog-shooting….Never, never shoot someones dog.

3

I like to think I'm a 1, but my natural inclination is more toward a 5.

The challenge to design a good scenario, where both sides feel purchase in their different goals, is a tough one. Often, one side is just more fun to play because of a more interesting goal.

I'd like to add that I have come to loath excessive cross-posting. I'd respectfully encourage stuff like this to go on the wargaming in general board rather than a dozen boards. In addition to annoying cranky people like me, you're wasting irreplacable electrons. Do it for a greener tomorrow.

Jim

Objectives. Always objectives and lessons to be taught and learned.

Balderdash!
Codswallop!
Poppycock!
TEACHING LESSONS????????????????? In a wargame?????????
I for one do not feel qualified to teach my friends lessons in a game. You, sir, are not either.

I'm qualified. But after a beer I'm more qualified.

i realy want a game to strike a good balance between the two. there should be a clear objective but a good amount of bloodshed is needed as well so i'll go with a 5.

I always try to enter into the spirit of the game.
objective. 2

I think you can be totally objective oriented (1) whilst wanting to some action (10). The whole point of a wargame is to simulate war: an environment where objectives are contested, and those conflicts are resolved by violence.

On a more practical side, if your objectives are fulfilled without crossing swords with the enemy then either your opponent didn't offer any resistance and you offered him none in return (sounds boring) or you ran rings around your opponent (or vice versa; also sounds boring).

If your sole goal is the annihilation of the enemy, whilst this is an acceptable objective in theory, in practice the game generally descends into one big brawl somewhere on the table, which for all intents and purposes is a mindless succession of roll-offs.

An interesting variant on the standard (at least for GW) victory point system of gaining VPs for enemies killed and objectives completed would be to have your total being VPs for objectives minus VPs for your own losses. I think it probably works out the same mathematically (correct me if I'm wrong) but more accurately reflects the mentality of a commander.

5

I'd much rather have objectives than some aimless free-for-all. If I don't have any sensible objectives, then I'll usually make myself some up – generally based on what my historical counterpart might try to do or have been trained to do in the same situation.

That probably makes me a 1.

My question to a player who had his character shoot my character's dog in a "pulp" game:

Me: Why did you shoot my dog???

He: Because he was there.

You forget the other two reasons your dog sidekick will get shot. We know it annoys you, and because you hate pet monkeys.

And I'm a 1 or 2. I'm a 2 when shooting someone to get the objective.

I for one do not feel qualified to teach my friends lessons in a game. You, sir, are not either.

I dunno… the military paid me to teach tactics, amd we used wargames as a medium to do that.

You can use tactics and cause plenty of mayhem without killing a single living thing.

In a "pulp" game created and GM'd by Chip of the Jacksonville Garrison at Recon I controled "Doc Savage" and his crew. As you all know, "Doc" does not kill. He uses non-lethal "mercy" bullets and gas bombs. So I stopped a convoy of soldiers of the "Purple Empire" by having my team attack them and heave gas bombs into the cabs of the trucks. I accomplished the mission in a "Doc" like fashion, left crashed trucks and knocked out soldiers all over Union Square Park, and stayed true to the character without a drop of blood being spilled. It was a great scenario that allowed the use of the characters as they normally would behave in the novels while leaving plenty of room for the employment of good tactics. It's up to the designer to create a scenario that will flow in the way he wants it to. If the idea is to capture cows, but the best or easiest way to do that is to kill everyone else first, it's a no-brainer that it will become a blood bath. Remember…there's always someone out there that'll shoot your dog just because he's there.

>>>You forget the other two reasons your dog sidekick will get shot. We know it annoys you, and because you hate pet monkeys. evil grin<<<

Doctor Goldwyrm

Everybody with any brains hates monkeys. They're noisy, smell bad and fling poo. They are stupid beyond all reason, they bite…and they don't love Jesus. Doggies are nice. Who would hurt a dog except an evil Nazi…or football player.

BTW, I haven't seen you for a while Mike. We have to get together sometime. (-:

Everybody with any brains hates monkeys. They're noisy, smell bad and fling poo. They are stupid beyond all reason, they bite…and they don't love Jesus. Doggies are nice. Who would hurt a dog except an evil Nazi…or football player.

And don't forget the important stuff: You can train your dog to get a beer for you. The monkey will go get the beer, then drink it himself.

Dogs win over monkeys. Every time.

I put myself at around a 3 or 4. I usually prefer to pursue the objectives as closely as possible. Still, it's nice to be able to light something up now and then.

>>And don't forget the important stuff: You can train your dog to get a beer for you. The monkey will go get the beer, then drink it himself.<<

LOL! Monkeys are truly evil.

I'd rate myself as a 1 or 2. I tend to approach playing a game like a method actor approaches a role: What's my motivation for this scene? In most cases the mission is the motivation. If at all possible, I'll try to stay in historical character, behave like I believe an average Age of Reason officer, 12th Century Saracen noble, 1880s Texas Ranger, 1920s Irish Mobster,etc. would behave and do my job at the highest cost to the enemy and the lowest cost to my men. If my mission is to keep the enemy from crossing the river and advancing on our flank and I can do that by demonstration, deployment, and countermarching without taking any casualties or even inflicting any casualties, I consider that a successful game. A good set of rules encourages mission- and character-motivated behavior: or rather implicitly or explicitly discourages pointless rampages just because a gamer has the attention span of a two-year-old and wants to make things go boom until the pizza arrives.

Mulligan

Unless the objective is to capture the enemy alive, eliminating him completely leaves all other objectives easy to obtain.
Then again there is the time scenario to reach the objective in a certain number of turns and I just don't have time to kill you today.
So I guess I'm a 5. Middle of the road.

I'm about a seven struggling to be a 3.

10. I'll run of and leave my buddies behind while I attack when I'm supposed to be defending an objective. Sad, I know, but that's just me.