"Rules Rant" Topic
48 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleESLO Terrain explains about their range of modular buildings.
Featured Profile ArticleOur Man in Southern California, Wyatt the Odd, reports on the Gamex 2005 convention.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
RABeery | 10 Jul 2014 8:28 a.m. PST |
Finally narrowed down why I dislike the latest trend in rule sets. In the old days if one had 3:1 odds the chances of success was around 90%, nowadays closer to 60%. It seems one wastes alot of effort to get your troops in the right position to achieve an advantages attack and still only have the same chance of success as a disorganized head long rush at the enemy would have achieved. I blame layer after layer of luck, and then the lack of reward for any tactics. First one has to survive the roll to move, card draw, or die roll related chart. Then one's roll to hit. After that the opponents saving roll. Sometimes another roll is thrown in somewhere. Some where in here the opponent gets some sort of special card draw or event roll that can further reduce or cancel one's attack. Just some thoughts. Ron |
daubere | 10 Jul 2014 8:35 a.m. PST |
I've never liked The Sword and the Flame rules either. Far too luck based. I've no idea why they're still popular after 35 years… |
Who asked this joker | 10 Jul 2014 8:56 a.m. PST |
I don't mind any of those game mechanics that you mention but I just don't want to see ALL of them in the same game! For me, most games these days are way too fiddly. I'm guessing that game design is cyclic. In the 60s, games were relatively simple but then rules were added to make them more "realistic". Mid 70s to the late 80s, we had uber complicated games. Lots of maths and other calculations just to figure out a single combat or task. Then we simplified again with GW going back to basics and PB creating DBA. GW, however, seems to be making their games ever more complex. DBA has remained relatively simple after 25 years or so. All of the latest releases from various companies are quite fiddly. Relatively simple games made complex with all sorts of special rules and game mechanics. There is a however, if only because I recently purchased it. A new ancients game "Sword and Spear" looks very promising. It is a very straight forward game. Everything about it is simple. There are some special rules to change the behavior of some of the units involved but not overly many. I am generally of the mind that troops will usually do what you want until they get stuck in. The game trend these days speak otherwise. |
Texas Jack | 10 Jul 2014 9:12 a.m. PST |
Well said Joker! |
John the OFM | 10 Jul 2014 9:13 a.m. PST |
There IS luck in TSATF. But it is nonsense to say that good tactics are not rewarded. Even Clausewitz or Napoleon or Lee would say that you have to account for luck. Your brilliant plan does not survive first contact with the enemy. I have found that a 3:1 attack often boils down to a bunch of 1:1 attacks first. It is not guaranteed, nor should it be. |
parrskool | 10 Jul 2014 9:58 a.m. PST |
You should try Neil Thomas's rules if you want to return to a happier time. |
Phil Hall | 10 Jul 2014 10:22 a.m. PST |
Was there ever a time when "THE PLAN" did survive first contact with the enemy |
gweirda | 10 Jul 2014 10:28 a.m. PST |
"Was there ever a time when "THE PLAN" did survive first contact with the enemy" Well, there was this time in the back seat of a '62 Chevy… ; ) |
Extra Crispy | 10 Jul 2014 10:39 a.m. PST |
Funny I see it just the reverse. Once upon a time troops behaved like guided missiles. They traveled at speeds known down to the millimeter, firing had relatively fixed effects, and morale was very straight line. Troops and subordinates never made a mistake. Highly coordinated attacks between various formations across a wide swath of the front were routine. Now the battlefield is a place of chaos and luck that you mange best you can… |
Tin Soldier Man | 10 Jul 2014 10:43 a.m. PST |
Is this ALL modern rule sets? It seems to be a bit of a generalization to lump all rules in together, surely? |
RABeery | 10 Jul 2014 10:49 a.m. PST |
I think 99% chaos and luck is excessive. Even a single die roll can take into account a multitude of variables. |
PzGeneral | 10 Jul 2014 12:41 p.m. PST |
Luck trumps skill everytime…… |
Repiqueone | 10 Jul 2014 12:46 p.m. PST |
From Clauswitz' Vom Krieg; "20.—It therefore now only wants the element of chance to make of it a game, and in that element it is least of all deficient. We see from the foregoing how much the objective nature of war makes it a calculation of probabilities; now there is only one single element still wanting to make it a game, and that element it certainly is not without: it is chance. There is no human affair which stands so constantly and so generally in close connection with chance as war. But along with chance, the accidental, and along with it good luck, occupy a great place in war. 21.—As war is a game through its objective nature, so also is it through its subjective. If we now take a look at the subjective nature of war, that is at those powers with which it is carried on, it will appear to us still more like a game. The element in which the operations of war are carried on is danger; but which of all the moral qualities is the first in danger? Courage. Now certainly courage is quite compatible with prudent calculation, but still they are things of quite a different kind, essentially different qualities of the mind; on the other hand, daring reliance on good fortune, boldness, rashness, are only expressions of courage, and all these propensities of the mind look for the fortuitous (or accidental), because it is their element. We see therefore how from the commencement, the absolute, the mathematical as it is called, no where finds any sure basis in the calculations in the art of war; and that from the outset there is a play of possibilities, probabilities, good and bad luck, which spreads about with all the coarse and fine threads of its web, and makes war of all branches of human activity the most like a game of cards." |
Dye4minis | 10 Jul 2014 1:23 p.m. PST |
Hi, Ron. You are not alone! "First one has to survive the roll to move, card draw, or die roll related chart." Me: For me, this one is an improvement. It's not really as much "if" a unit will move, it's more like "when can the unit get moving?" Not all tasks take the same amount of time. For instance, you happen to be home and watching your favorite show before dinner when your wife asks you to go to the store and get some milk. How long will that take you? (Assume you must drive to the store.) Do you hit all the lights red? Was there milk at that store? Did you find yourself in the slowest line? (MY Fate!). Just a few real life factors that conspire to keep life interesting! So to me, this rule answers the question, "Does this unit move this turn?" Admittedly a broad brush stroke…perhaps better than a "yes" or "no" answer, add in Yes, but only a half move (representing the move starting halfway thru the passage of time within the game turn representation. Ron: "Then one's roll to hit. After that the opponents saving roll."
Me: Agreed! What's the use of the saving roll? Wasn't the target's terrain, range, cover, etc. modified in the chance to "hit"? Ron:" Sometimes another roll is thrown in somewhere. Some where in here the opponent gets some sort of special card draw or event roll that can further reduce or cancel one's attack." Me: Classic example of a designer wanting you to be playing a GAME….fantasy….not really based on real life situations at this particular time the card/event should apply. While probably not designed for every case, it sure seems to raise it's ugly misapplication at the worst time which imposes some malady upon some hapless unit at the most implausible time! (An "out of ammo" result for example.) In real life, the unit leadership really messed up badly if each soldier goes into battle with just 40 rounds and forces the men to fire it all off within a hour and NOT requesting more during that hour! Did it happen anyway? Sure, I'd bet someone could find an example of that! Did it happen enough times to warrant a random event for it? Probably not….unless it is a way to penalize a side for not having a local supply on-board…..? In this example, (if you like record keeping) the number of turns a unit can fire could be tracked. More realistic, but at the expense of adding another level of detail in the game. One compromise could be (in pregame preparation for this scenario) 5% of the units might have a yellow marker/chip behind the command stand, with a number on it. The number relates to on what turn the unit would have to check for low/out of ammo. Until that turn, no worries. because it was allocated to the units before the game starts, it adds the required amount of tension for the gamer? I congratulate you on questioning the rules you use by comparing them to what happened in real life and the author's intent for the rule. You should always feel free to tinker with your set of rules. After all, you purchased the right to use them as you feel! Change whatever gives a better feel as long as you and your opponent agree. Enjoy your hobby! |
Extra Crispy | 10 Jul 2014 3:22 p.m. PST |
The reason for the "saving roll" AFAIK has always been to give the defender something to do. Of course, you can always do the math and get rid of the roll. |
Who asked this joker | 10 Jul 2014 3:42 p.m. PST |
The reason for the "saving roll" AFAIK has always been to give the defender something to do. Only partially. It is also a way to extend the granularity of a D6. For instance, you can cut the odds of hitting in half simply by allowing a 4+ saving roll after a successful hit. Back in the day, there weren't any funny dice. D6s were it. |
Extra Crispy | 10 Jul 2014 3:43 p.m. PST |
How far back in the day? I had "funny dice" in 1970-something… |
normsmith | 10 Jul 2014 4:03 p.m. PST |
Players do have to be prevented from 'over commanding', the all seeing eye, getting everything exactly into the right attacking positions etc. And those that just 'have to win' also need a restraining hand. This is where chaos has its place, but I think a system needs to show to the player that the chaos is not just a randomiser that is thrown in for effect, but rather an effect that is believable. So not being able to move out of reserve because orders have not come through (yet) seems a reasonable mechanic and random event tables can often bring history or period realities / restraint into a game, but over die rolling or having a 'killer' card played against you at a moment when an ordinary person would say the 'moment is yours' can lead to frustration with a system. Taking some of the control away from players is also often a great advantage to people who play solo. Once a 3:1 attack actually goes in, one might expect that any range of results will be better than a 'no effect', even if only very marginal – such as defenders hold but go disorganised or whatever. |
Ottoathome | 10 Jul 2014 4:17 p.m. PST |
Dear RABeery I get the feeling from your post that you don't object to these little bits of fidgeting, only to the number. Is that it? I note in your second post that you say that even a signle die roll can take into account a wide range of variables. If so I agree with you. I believe that the problem comes from not thinking out clearly at which point "the player enters the game." In my rules the player enters the game as a commander of a portion of the army, left right or center or the whole shebang. Thus as a major general officer you are only concerened with the big pictue. Most of the small stuff like formatio and readiness, and if the soldiers have their cartridge boxes in the right position is so far above you. But the problem is that most rules make a fetish of rolling for every position from the sergeant on up. \ It all depends on the game design. |
Who asked this joker | 10 Jul 2014 5:53 p.m. PST |
How far back in the day? I had "funny dice" in 1970-something… None of the TSR games had funny dice in the mid 70s. White Box encouraged you to use chits. Tractics did not have them either. AFAIK, the board games of the time also used D6s. |
Weasel | 10 Jul 2014 6:21 p.m. PST |
A lot of the extra dice rolls comes in because that means you can add conditions, modifiers or special skills/abilities to them. The more moving parts, the more you can mess with those parts. Try writing a game with no stats. It's fun :) |
fox news tea party | 10 Jul 2014 7:53 p.m. PST |
Isn't McLaddie going to join this party? Surely he has the ANSWER! LOL! Luck. Dice. Fox News. Three things no one can believe in! |
Ray the Wargamer | 10 Jul 2014 10:43 p.m. PST |
Friction in war (read Clausewitz)….it is real. No commander controls everything on the battlefield. Even the best commanders fail at times because they can't identify or control every variable that affects their plan. Good commanders know this and account for it in their planning…a simple example is reserves. Poor players have a hard time with "luck" because they don't anticipate what can go wrong, and work with it. Good tactics include the probability that things will not go as planned. Of course, there's always chess. |
Cerdic | 10 Jul 2014 11:32 p.m. PST |
Napoleon said something about preferring to have a lucky General than a good General. I like the random application of luck. It makes the game seem more realistic. If you read accounts written by the men who were actually there, they are full of stuff like 'we sat around for an hour in this position then suddenly we were ordered to advance to the village half a mile up the road'. Or 'we came out of the wood and unexpectedly met the enemy'. Or 'we advanced up the hill and came upon an area of rocky ground which slowed us considerably'. In real war you never know how long it will take to get troops moving, how long it will take for them to get there, or exactly where the enemy are. |
Martin Rapier | 11 Jul 2014 2:52 a.m. PST |
We can all selectively quote Clausewitz. One point he was very keen to make were that numbers trumped everything (in the context of nineteenth century warfare) and that he had only found one instance of an army winning a battle when outnumbered by 2:1 or more. So 'the key is to be as strong as possible'. In general however, we all have different tastes as to how much chance we want to see in games, however good a simulation it might be. In the APW and FPW I am often struck by how little control senior commanders had, frankly you may just as well roll dice for each Corps to see what they decide to do and I have every sympathy for Von Moltke and even more so for poor Benedeck who discovered that his right wing at Koeniggratz had decided to attack the Prussians all on its own. |
(Phil Dutre) | 11 Jul 2014 3:08 a.m. PST |
In essence, such a question comes down to what you like in a game, and what you think what makes a game fun to play. Some like chaos, some like predictiveness. It has not so much to do with what happened on an actual battlefield, but all with your preferences on how to discretize and represent all actions, events, luck, etc. in your game. When I am watching a sports events on tv, I really hate it when the commentator says something along the lines of "We are sure the world record will not be broken today. The weather is not good, the track is suboptimal, and the average running times are such and so so far this season." As a spectator, I want to feel the thrill *during the race* of the WR that might be broken. But I also understand the commentator with a lot of pre-knowledge and access to statistics who already knows there's no chance in hell such an event might happen. He likes the predictiveness, I like the chaos. I would not like a game, where both players say: "Given the army composition, given the scenario objectives, given the initial deployment of the troops, there's a 70% chance side A will win this game". Because in that case, you might as well roll a D100 and determine the outcome right at that moment. Rather, as a player, I want to feel the tension during the game itself. And yes, even if the odds are against me, I am hoping for the dice to roll my way and give that certain% of luck to turn a loss into a victory. That is what makes a game fun. |
coopman | 11 Jul 2014 6:06 a.m. PST |
There are those who like the unpredictability/luck factor in their games and then there are those who like the rigid control game where the player has total control over the troops and they will do everything that he desires and always shoot and melee with known percentages of success. I am in the former camp. |
OSchmidt | 11 Jul 2014 7:23 a.m. PST |
Dear Phil Dutre I have to second your post on this. The commentators of the sports events don't bother me. Mostly because I don't listen to sports but even when I do or when it's a similar situation I am guided by the principle of "Man proposes and God disposes." I'm a director of planning for a medium sized electronics manufacturer and been in planning for 25 years. I always say that whenever a planner says "Yes" to a question of if the parts will be here on time, or the run complete under budget, there's a silent clause which goes "god willing and the creek don't rise." NOTHING in this life is "written." Anyone who thinks so is oblivious to the world around him. I'm a rational man, and believe in science and logic, but whenever someone says "It can't possibly fail" I go into a little routine of making spitting sounds through my fingers, saying "toi toi" touching ear or eye or knocking on wood, or saying "Your lips to God's ears." because if there is anything I know, it is that if you make that statement you are courting the wrath of the angel in charge of irony. Your statement "He likes the predictiveness, I like the chaos." is one I perfectly agree with. I'm not sitting down at the table to see the expected. That's humdrum-- and boring-- I want to see the X factor- the excitement. That's what we're all here for! Can't tell you how many times I've seen a Borodino game where the Moscow Militia flattens the Old Guard. I remember those games, the games where it's the other way around drift off into the fog of forgetfulness. But wait! Isn't that what we focus on in history? We want the excitement, we WANT the drama. It's like my paradigm of Ancient rules for the Greeks and Romans. In any game there should be a set of "uber-rules" for this period. here they are. In any ancient game follow the following procedure. (read carefully!) 1. If you have non Greco-Romans against non-Greco- Romans then have your battle and use whatever rules you want. 2. If you have Greco-Romans against Greco-Romans, then have your battle and use whatever rules you want. 3. If you have Greco-Romans against non Greco-Romans, then each side rolls a die. If the Greco-Romans roll a 1 and the non Greco-Romans roll a 6, then have your battle and use whatever rules you want. 4. In any other case then there is no battle. The non-Greco-Romans are completely destroyed with no loss whatsoever to the Greco-Romans. Congratulations you non-Greco-Romans, you are now slaves-- or dead. Now.. OBVIOUSLY this is Not a real rule system, but it does match pretty well the number of statistical times the Greco-Romans beat the non-Greco Romans. The few times you can name where non Greco-Romans beat the Greco Romans, can be numbered on one hand, like Carrhae, Teutoberger Wald, Ariuso, etc. The point being it's an anodyne to all those rules sets out there where almost anything winds up able to beat the Greco-Romans. Dozens and dozens of engagements prove this. But the point is-- WE'RE NOT HERE TO HAVE ONE-SIDED GAMES, or games with such a grim predictability. We WANT to game Carrhae, or Teutoberger Wald, or Lake Trasimene or Cannae, we WANT the excitement of the historical upset. That's because in real life we're all underdogs- Davids who regularly get flattened by the Goliath's in our Life. So therefore as you said- you are looking, as I, for the chaos, to be able to say "WOW look at dat!" And it works. Is this realistic? That all of our good work and planning can be undone by mere chance. Yup! Tis. McClellan gets extravagantly lucky when one of his scouting parties finds Lee's entire plan wrapped up with two cigars in a field. Lee is extravagantly lucky that McClellan is the general who finds it. Any other and he would have been ripped apart post haste! That's the stuff of which history is made. I agree with the original poster though. Too much of this ruins the game. Worse, it ruins it's own utility. dice roll after dice roll for arcane points just becomes destructive tot he excitement it' supposed to engenger. It's like in my game "OH God! Anything But a Six!" which you have-- the initiative system. The game begins. One side has initiative. The next turn he has to roll to retain it. He has six cards one with a one, one with a 1-2 all the way up to a 1-6. He has to roll within that range to keep it for that turn. He can choose any one to roll on. I CRINGE!!! Positively cringe when he says loftily "We'll I'll save my 1 to 6 for a latter turn and use my 1 to 5, it's and 80% chance, the odds are with me! Off up towards the ceiling over the guys shoulder I think I see a movement-- was that angelic fingers making some sort of sign… and the guy rolls… and it's a 6! It happens almost every time! But it makes a great game. It's a game with wild swings of fortune. Many times I've heard players on turn 3 say "Oh well we're done for, want to play a board game" but two turns later they've turned it around and they're sthinking "we're going to win, win win!!!!" This is NOT to extoll the excellence if any of my rules. It is that players like these wide swings of fortune just like they like roller coaters. You hit it on the head Phil. Once again sorry we couldn't meet when you were over here this year. Otto |
DeRuyter | 11 Jul 2014 9:58 a.m. PST |
How far back in the day? I had "funny dice" in 1970-something…
I had the funny dice, circa 1979, that were made of material that would guarantee your d20 would turn into a marble after a few long nights of D&D! |
War Artisan | 11 Jul 2014 10:52 a.m. PST |
So many statements filled with certainty about what fun is, and what we're all in this hobby for! One almost gets the impression that many wargamers, who are generally a pretty imaginitive bunch, utterly lack the ability to imagine that anyone has tastes or motivations different from their own. While everyone's tolerances differ, a balance between luck and predictability is the key to making a game interesting. It is easy to assume that Clausewitz was putting all the emphasis on luck when making his much-quoted comment about a game of cards, but he refers earlier only to an "element of chance", without implying that luck was dominant. After the initial deal, card players make the most of the hand luck has dealt them by making reasoned decisions about how to play their cards, constantly keeping in mind that their opponent is doing the same. It's the interplay of these opposed decisions, tempered by luck, that makes a game of cards a good analogy for war. I think that's an important feature of the point Clausewitz was making. A game where everything turns out exactly as you'd expect is no less fun than a game where every well planned move a player makes is undone by lousy dice rolls. It is much more interesting to have your plan taken apart by an opponent who makes unexpected counter-moves. But then, unexpected moves are not likely to be possible on 99 percent of the game tables I see, where all the troops are lined up edge-to-edge and the players have no option but to march towards their opponent and hope for good dice . . . now that is the antithesis of fun. If you want to go on a rant about predictability in wargames, scenario design would be a good place to start. Regards, Jeff |
Mick A | 12 Jul 2014 3:24 a.m. PST |
Personally I prefer games that use two rolls for combat, one to see if the target(s) is hit and a second to see what that hit has done to the target(s). I played GW games for many, many years and the saving throw always bugged me… |
etotheipi | 12 Jul 2014 4:41 a.m. PST |
Back in the day, there weren't any funny dice. How far back in the day? I had "funny dice" in 1970-something… link |
Winston Smith | 12 Jul 2014 5:24 a.m. PST |
I see a lot of "outraged dislike" here for rules mechanisms that others find perfectly acceptable, even preferrable. And major dislike for results that many like. And this thread is on the Rant Board. "How date you enjoy what is so obviously unrealistic and non historical!" |
RABeery | 12 Jul 2014 10:44 a.m. PST |
Have to admit that I enjoy proper tactics and the "art of war" and I like to see them both on the tabletop. Just give me a reward for bothering to use them. Ron |
Repiqueone | 12 Jul 2014 3:16 p.m. PST |
The most interesting aspect of this decrying of one mechanic or another in wargames, is that when you walk through a convention hall ( especially if new to the hobby, I suspect) the tables, other than the artistry of terrain and figures, all look about the same. The activities of the gamers, ranging from bored and dozing, to maniacally yelling and cheering, are similar regardless of the specific rules being played. The clutter of tables, dice, and coke cans is pretty consistent. The roles of loud spoken GM and the slightly dazed look of gamers unfamiliar with the period or rules is to be seen again and again. The truth is the "real" game is in the gamer's mind, and that's also where the difference solely resides- in the imagination of the players in a specific game. It is very subjective, and very much a creature of personal preference. One can argue about a certain mechanic, but the mechanic is just as valid as any other in the right context. Certainly one can argue historicity of a rule set, but that is seldom a matter of the mechanics, and, as a matter of fact, rules generally get the broad strokes and accepted "truths" about a period well enough and very much within the consensus of most gamers concerning a given period. At root, its a game and the bulk of the activity resides in the gamer's imagination. If it seems right to a gamer and his buddies then its as true and correct as it is going to get. Now some people have imaginations that have narrow parameters on acceptability, and require more literal and obvious mechanisms, and some allow greater latitude and indirect approaches. Some people like greater risk and variability of extremes, some like high degrees of predictability and constrained ranges of outcomes. Some mechanics lend themselves to one set of expectations, and some are better at creating different outcomes. The mechanics are neutral. The choice of which mechanic and how they are mixed is the creative task of a game designer. The choice of which rules or games to play is the gamer's and his group. Whatever their choice or preference, it is neither right or wrong, more or less accurate, more or less fun, EXCEPT to them. That's why hundreds of different movies, books, paintings, and games are released every year. Observing boxoffice results, book sales, Nielsen ratings, and rants on TMP, we can all agree that popularity is no key to "best," either. One man's art of war and tactics is another's fussy game mechanics. Luckily, there's a "perfect" and "fun" and sufficiently "historically accurate " rules set for everyone. It just isn't the same set, or the same mechanics for everyone. Thank Heavens! |
Analsim | 25 Jul 2014 9:20 a.m. PST |
Repiqueone, I don't come out from under my rock to often these days, but you touched upon a notion in your comments above that I do absolutely agree with you on. Go figure? I call this "real" game is in the gamer's mind, that you refer to above as the wargame's 'story line'. I agree that this story line is Not the same in each Player's mind and IS what the Wargame experience is really about. Thus, I would suggest to you that it is a major purpose of the game design to 'not try to dictate this mental state', but 'shape the environment' that will provide the tanigble/positive influences that would likely create continuity/consistancy or a common theme among these independent story lines in each of the Player's mind. I wouldn't agree that these influences are largely subjective. Because we are attempting to trigger a common response among the Players (within their minds), even if this means resorting to methods/mechanics that would have commonality with what Palov did with his Dog. Regards, Analsim |
Patrice | 25 Jul 2014 12:12 p.m. PST |
Not the same in each Player's mind I agree! It is funny I have heard the same discussion in Historical Re-enactment groups, again and again. I have met very different sorts of re-enactors (although to the public it looks all the same!) Some just want to wear a precise and clean uniform; some just want to sleep under a tent in a cold winter; many just want to spend a week-end with friends and don't care if there are modern beer cans all around; some want to see only period items, and some even pretend to speak and hear only an old-fashioned language all the time to believe in the situation (and I'm afraid I am in this category). …This led to many arguments in many of the Re-enactment groups I've been in. The conclusion often was: although the hobby may look the same, people taking part in it are not looking for the same thing! …so (as everyone has a right to find in the hobby what he is looking for), there is no need for heated discussions: people only have to say what they want, and talk frankly. Either it is compatible with the others in the group, or it is not; if it isn't, it's not a problem, just create another group and do it separately and we'll be good friends and some times we can even play together (although not too often). :) |
McLaddie | 25 Jul 2014 12:42 p.m. PST |
I agree with Asalsim and Repiqueone. Players come to a game for a wide variety of reasons and of course have very personal experiences playing it. I also agree with Asalsim that it isn't all subjective. While the experience can be totally subjective on the players' part, the designer is trying to create a particular play experience. In simulation design such as Alsalsim and Repiqueone's wargames, it's called 'guided pretending.' If it is history that is being portrayed by the game mechanics, whether it is chaotic or predictable, it is an outside framework developed by the designer to produce specific experiences for the players. Whether they like those experiences is totally subjective. That means that if the wargame works as designed, all players will have similar experiences in play at least part of the time, which makes those experiences more than individually subjective. Even if the designer's goal is for the players to 'have fun', that is an experience meant to be shared among all players produced at least in part by the game mechanics and play. Good friends, great table and beer etc. adding to the fun. |
Analsim | 28 Jul 2014 12:42 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, O.K. Sounds like we are basically in synch. Now try to put your mind around this notion. Given the 'known-unknown' mental perspective of the individual Players, setting the parameters that act as a backdrop to this story line, probably have more influence on game design acceptability as any rule you actually write. Much like the props, sound/special effects and custumes that the actors wear in a play or movie. If you buy that, then I'd venture to state that if you get that Player's 'intuitive image' reasonably correct/acceptable, You'll probably lose ground with each word and rule that you create beyong that simple point in nature. Basically, I'm saying that I'm willing to bet that, You, Me and everyone else will be fascinated with a historically viable "Diorama" until 'you ruin it' with your interpretation of processes and mechanics that attempt to animate it. Regards, Analsim |
McLaddie | 29 Jul 2014 10:38 a.m. PST |
If you buy that, then I'd venture to state that if you get that Player's 'intuitive image' reasonably correct/acceptable, You'll probably lose ground with each word and rule that you create beyond that simple point in nature.Basically, I'm saying that I'm willing to bet that, You, Me and everyone else will be fascinated with a historically viable "Diorama" until 'you ruin it' with your interpretation of processes and mechanics that attempt to animate it. Analsim:
I am not sure I follow. Are you saying that because the designer's 'interpretation' of a historically viable 'diorama' on the table will not match gamers', odds are, his view of history [and thus his game mechanics]will ruin the 'pretending' for most gamers? If that is what you mean, then from my wargame experience, when gamers talk about their hunt for 'the perfect game', they mean one which closely matches their understanding of history, thus the 'perfect' vehicle of pretending/immersion--for them. Unlike history, "fun" pretending is soooo much more generic and a far easier target when trying to design for wide gamer acceptance. The less detail provided, the fewer historical specifics explained allows for a wider arena for gamer imagination. A totally opaque set of rules gives gamers the most freedom in filling in the blanks with pretending. In other words, the opposite of 'guided pretending.' A simulation can't depend on a player's 'intuitive image' as a starting point at all, particularly because the designer can't know it well enough for even one individual, let alone hundreds and thousands. What wargame designers do now is 'hope' that their 'intuitive image' matches enough points among wargamers' to make it successful. --or vague enough that large numbers of gamers can *pretend* it does. Because it is impossible to know any gamer's 'intuitive image' of history and battle, each game design is a crap shoot in many respects, particularly if a designer wants to do something 'different.' Not surprisingly, designs are often derivative, using what mechanics has proven a 'match' in the past. |
Analsim | 29 Jul 2014 12:04 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, I'm saying that a static diorama like Siborne's Waterloo model, just on its face value alone will likely meet the majority of everyones expectation of what Napoleonic Warfare should look like, at least,…UNTIL! someone like You or Me (the game designer) ruins/distorts that pure image (in the Player's mind) with YOUR interpretation of the historical procedures/rules needed to animate it (i.e. turn it into a simulation). If left alone, I (myself) can view that diorama and imagine myself firing the Cannons, Leading the Cavalry Charges and taking La Haye Sainte and a host of all kinds of romantic escapades, all acted out in perfect conformance to to the Principals, Tactics and Doctrine of Napoleonic Warfare, until some Game Designer says I have to follow procedures A, B, C via Steps 1-2-3! None which is likely to be very FUN or help perserve the image in my mind. Regards, James |
McLaddie | 29 Jul 2014 7:36 p.m. PST |
If left alone, I (myself) can view that diorama and imagine myself… until some Game Designer says I have to follow procedures A, B, C via Steps 1-2-3!None which is likely to be very FUN or help perserve the image in my mind. James: Okay. Thanks for the clarifications. I'm not sure whether that kind of 'pretending' and imagination has much to do with wargaming, other than the diorama aspect of miniatures. You don't need a game for that kind of imagining--and as you point out, game mechanics can only get in the way of the gamer 'if left alone'. Sounds lonely and it makes most game design unnecessary. Someone like You or Me (the game designer) ruins/distorts that pure image (in the Player's mind) with YOUR interpretation of the historical procedures/rules needed to animate it (i.e. turn it into a simulation). If I create the rules, they can only be 'my interpretation.' Players come to the game to experience that. If they don't, they can only be disappointed. As it is, the experience provides an opportunity for 'new' imaginative experiences. That is a real draw IF the gamer has an adequate understanding of the history and YOUR interpretation of it. If you ever go to hear the symphony "Peter and Wolf", one thing you will always get is an explanation of which music and instrument represents Peter, the Wolf, the duck etc. Without it, it may be music you enjoy or not, but any real understanding of what the composer was attempting is lost. With the explanation, the listener can imagine along with the composer as a common starting point for each individual's imagining, the narrative and emotions of the story. That is what wargames/simulations do when adequately presented. Without it, the experience can be enjoyable 'music' that leads a listener to all sorts of imaginings, but odds are it will have little to do with what the music was designed to do…and that is what why people go to hear Peter and the Wolf..and why many gamers play wargames. To 'learn' some history and to experience 'it' in a dramatic way. To do that, they need to know what 'it' is. Best Regards, Bill |
Analsim | 30 Jul 2014 12:42 p.m. PST |
Bill, To bring this discussion full circle and take into consideration some of the factors addressed in that 'quad matrix' you provided in your motivation thread. You are NOT going to satisfy everyones wargaming motives and desires. Which is one of the reasons why I made such an extreme case out of the diorama example. While the 'story line' does help to explain why Wargamers find playing a particular wargame FUN. It doesn't do much to reconcile this experience with History. And,…NO! It should go without saying that, Your perception of History, has nothing to do with actual History. Why someone would offer that up, would really take a stretch of the imagination, but don't rule it out. In fact, I'm even considering 'stiffling & ignoring' myself for even mentioning that to you! ;^) Regards, James |
McLaddie | 30 Jul 2014 5:05 p.m. PST |
You are NOT going to satisfy everyones wargaming motives and desires. Which is one of the reasons why I made such an extreme case out of the diorama example. James: Ah, no, no one is going to accomplish that with any product. I wasn't suggesting that was possible. I was pointing out what gets in the way of what the designer's wargame offers and what gamers perceive, not whether they will like it or not. You know, I have never tried self-stifling. I wonder if it would work. And,…NO! It should go without saying that, Your perception of History, has nothing to do with actual History. Why someone would offer that up, would really take a stretch of the imagination, but don't rule it out. My perception of history is unavoidably based on what artifacts and writings have been left by those who lived it--it's what I am interpreting or what others are interpreting that I use. So it has to have *something* to do with actual history. That evidence is all I can know of the real events and people and certainly all I can 'simulate'. So when I say I am simulating history, I have to be able to point to the evidence I am interpreting with game mechanics for it to be a meaningful statement. It is the design's template. The questions of whether that constitutes 'real history' or 'fun' are very personal judgments. Regardless of the answers, they don't change how historical simulations work at all. Best Regards, Bill |
Analsim | 31 Jul 2014 10:59 a.m. PST |
Bill, Perception is not the right word, when we really mean 'premise'. Thus, I am perfectly agreeable to establishing what your wargame's historical "premise" (A proposition that forms the basis of an argument or from which a conclusion is drawn.) is going to be. That way you can separate this key aspect from Player's perceptions of it. ;^) Regardless of all that, what do you think is the Game Designer's responsibility to define Player roles to sustaining some type of 'collective story line'? Is this even doable? Regards, James |
Analsim | 31 Jul 2014 11:38 a.m. PST |
Bill, Had to drop off before I gave you an example of 'collective story line'. The old game of "Diplomacy" would ofeer the perfect example of what I'm getting at. Because the game mechanics not really per se the focal point of creating and sustaining this collective story line which is the purvue of the Players inacteracting with one another on their own. Neverless, that is where the majority of the FUN is, right? I'm just wondering out loud if it is possible to do something similar in a more traditional ground combat game format? James |
McLaddie | 31 Jul 2014 5:44 p.m. PST |
Regardless of all that, what do you think is the Game Designer's responsibility to define Player roles to sustaining some type of 'collective story line'?Is this even doable? James: Defining player roles in his game isn't the designer's responsibility, it is an unavoidable and necessary aspect of game design. Simply designing the game defines the players' roles in a collective story line.' The old game of "Diplomacy" would ofeer the perfect example of what I'm getting at. Because the game mechanics not really per se the focal point of creating and sustaining this collective story line which is the purvue of the Players inacteracting with one another on their own. Oh, I don't agree with that. The game mechanics, map, historical situation AND even the name of the game, Diplomacy, define and direct the players' roles. The "story line" has been set up as well as the parameters of the players' roles [in the rule book] regarding 'what they can do'. Even the newbie players can see that if they sit back and never engage in 'dipomacy', they will lose. And the designer purposely placed the "majority of the fun" where it is found. It isn't an accident or a failure of the game design. There is the formal game and then the informal game outside the rules. Poker has this. The rules are simple but the informal game, reading players and figuring out odds etc. reamins a great deal of the 'fun' of poker. Game design [i.e. the rules and also the paraphenalia] can invite and sustain the informal. Don't multiple player [more than two] tabletop games do something similar? Some even go deep into role playing. Is that what you are thinking of, or something different? Best Regards, Bill Neverless, that is where the majority of the FUN is, right? I'm just wondering out loud if it is possible to do something similar in a more traditional ground combat game format? |
|