Le Bovin | 04 Dec 2014 11:00 a.m. PST |
Hi Guys; I (like many others) am on a quest for the perfect game. And to find it, I started by trying to define it. This train of thoughts and a TMP thread on army lists brought me to this… "concept": A game have many rules, which can be anything from basic to complex. Many games designers chose to define a very simple set of basic rules, and then make elaborate army lists or special rules to create tactical depth; an example that immediately come to my mind is Malifaux. This game, is very interesting and tactically challenging, but it relies on game balance to make it fun… a very simple tweak of a special rule or stat can throw the game out the window. As well, these games would be extremely boring if you tried to play using no special rules and only basic stat line… Opposite from those; some games chose to build the tactical depth in the rules themselves, and while game balance can still be an issue if wrongly implemented, the whole game does not RELY on the army lists to make it fun… Chain of command come to my mind as an example. of course, there are games that stand at every point in between; warmachine, infinity, Ganesha's and DBA all rely heavily on army lists and special rules, but all would still be interesting with basic troops, as the "built in" rules still provide… fun… now; you probably have guessed that I do have a preference for my games to be on the low end of "army list and special rules reliance"… But I must admit that I do not know of a lot of games that fit this description… So I ask your input: what games do you know that rely on it's basic mechanics for the tactical depth and only provide special rules for "added seasoning"? |
MajorB | 04 Dec 2014 11:04 a.m. PST |
and DBA all rely heavily on army lists and special rules On what special rules does DBA rely? |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 04 Dec 2014 11:18 a.m. PST |
@MajorB: the many different unit interactions (+3 vs foot, +4 vs. mounted, destroyed by psiloi if both are in going both consider bad [an imaginary example.]) Also, BUAs. |
Big Red | 04 Dec 2014 11:27 a.m. PST |
It's the scenario that makes the game fun. It's the participants that make the experience fun. |
OSchmidt | 04 Dec 2014 11:45 a.m. PST |
The game is completely irrelevant to having fun. It's the guys you are playing with that make it fun. --You can have the worst, dumbest, stupidest, unrealistic, inane, difficult, and abominable set of rules, but if you're playing with a great bunch of guys it will be a great game. On the other hand if you're gaming with a bunch of nasty, egotistical, difficult, rules lawyering rude and bickering gamers even God himself couldn't make a set of rules that would succeed. Don't believe me? Look around you. You cannot HAVE fun when ruining YOUR fun is THEIR fun. |
The Virtual Armchair General | 04 Dec 2014 11:54 a.m. PST |
|
Dynaman8789 | 04 Dec 2014 11:58 a.m. PST |
Have to disagree with Oschmidt and Virtual – crap game systems are not fun no matter who you play with. |
Le Bovin | 04 Dec 2014 12:03 p.m. PST |
OSchmidt, I completely agree; that is exactly what drove me out of gaming stores, and what make me only play with freinds; in our homes, with a (un)healty supply of snacks and brew… this is also why my daughters have a hard time sleeping while we play… loud laughing… That said; a good, tactically challenging game can still be ruined (as in "less good than it could have been"… not "storming out of the store in rage"…) if the game relies in the army lists, and those army lists happen to be broken… This is why I am looking for games (skirmish prefered) where the tactical depth is not driven by the army lists. |
Le Bovin | 04 Dec 2014 12:05 p.m. PST |
same can be said about scenarios; Good scenario adds to a good game, bad scenario break a good game… So I would be tempted to classify games that rely on scenario balance on the same side as games that rely on lists… Mind you; nothing beats a good scenario. |
OSchmidt | 04 Dec 2014 12:14 p.m. PST |
Dear Le Bovin. We are in violent agreement once the original hurdle is past. Your course has been my course. I dropped out of stores and clubs and now just give games for a basement group of guests and friends who are fun. AFTER you've dumped the , then everything you say in your post is true and the search for a good rules, game, scenario, whatever can be pursued. Dynaman I disagree, crap game systems are monstrously fun once you get the group going. They'll simply not put up with it and make changes as they go along and turn the crappy system into a good one. This happens at "The Weekend" all the time. A guy will come in with a new system for World War Two or Napoleonics. He'll round up a few guys to help him playtest the game. After a few beers everyone will say "this is crap" Now let's try this or that, or re do this, and actually pull it back and redo it, and they come out with a lot of fun and a great game. On the other hand, we've played a few crap systems many times because of the yuks and laughs we have. Of course,…. it's not the same game when we get done with it but… |
Frederick | 04 Dec 2014 12:51 p.m. PST |
The people make the game – but having a decent game helps, too I am a simple person so simple rules is what I like |
Yesthatphil | 04 Dec 2014 12:51 p.m. PST |
The history is what makes it 'fun' – a genuine and intelligent attempt to explore the military history behind the game. Because the history is in itself fascinating and compelling … and the game is, well, a game (so _with the history the game unlocks all the wonders of the past … _without the history you may as well play backgammon or some other tactical game of chance*) … Yes, intelligent like-minded friends who share the same fascination are key (but you kind of get them anyway if you get the game right …) … I think as your wargaming develops so does your circle of friends and fellow enthusiasts. Army Lists have an important role to play in helping you see how actual forces translate into miniature forces in the game designer's conception (but never replace the history that should underpin them) … I have never played a game that was ruined by an Army List – but then I only play historical games (but I guess a bad game is a bad game – don't blame the idea of providing army lists for that!! ). As Dynaman says, crap game systems are not fun no matter who you play with. They won't spoil your enjoyment of good company of course – just you'll either fix the game or bin it for the future … analysing the issue might well give you an enjoyable session, however**. I think everyone's take on this will be different, of course (and I know plenty of people who play fantasy as well as traditional wargames) but I can only answer for what has kept me so fascinated and entertained for decades that I still lose track of time during a game) … Phil *and, yes, of course I'd rather play backgammon than Warhammer … why ask? ** though not one you'll want to have very often of course |
Dynaman8789 | 04 Dec 2014 1:08 p.m. PST |
> I disagree, crap game systems are monstrously fun once you get the group going. They'll simply not put up with it and make changes as they go along and turn the crappy system into a good one. Not my group – it is play as written or toss it. For awhile they were stuck on a game system I despised so I stopped playing. Too many game choices out there to keep playing one I don't like. As for what makes a game fun. I could give a list but it is like a good book or movie, it is hard to define what makes a good one vs a bad one. |
MajorB | 04 Dec 2014 1:12 p.m. PST |
the many different unit interactions (+3 vs foot, +4 vs. mounted, destroyed by psiloi if both are in going both consider bad [an imaginary example.]) Also, BUAs. The many different unit interactions in DBA are not special rules, they are the core combat mechanic. I might grant you that the rules relating to BUAs are "special", but then the presence of a BUA on an ancient or medieval battlefield was fairly special too. Besides, what you mean by "special rules" and what the OP meant by it in his post may not be the same thing? |
evilgong | 04 Dec 2014 3:31 p.m. PST |
Hi there Mr OSHmidt said: ?>>>>>>>>>>> The game is completely irrelevant to having fun. It's the guys you are playing with that make it fun. --You can have the worst, dumbest, stupidest, unrealistic, inane, difficult, and abominable set of rules, but if you're playing with a great bunch of guys it will be a great game. On the other hand if you're gaming with a bunch of nasty, egotistical, difficult, rules lawyering rude and bickering gamers even God himself couldn't make a set of rules that would succeed. >>>>>>>>>>> I think this is half right, a bad player group could ruin any set of rules. But some rules are so hard to understand or play that they would frustrate a bunch of saints. David F Brown |
Jamesonsafari | 04 Dec 2014 3:42 p.m. PST |
A good scenario and interesting history. A good set of rules with lots of decision points. A good bunch of guys to play with. I have a great bunch of guys to play with but I still don't really enjoy the GAME if the rules or scenario are crap. Then it's the table banter and snacks that make the evening passable. I like my friends but I won't play 40K with them, because the games itself sucks. |
JezEger | 05 Dec 2014 5:19 a.m. PST |
Any game where you have to constantly refer to the rulebook automatically ruins a game for me. The simpler the better is my motto. Keep the figures moving. I read about games where they managed 'four moves in an evening's play' and realise that is my version of hell. Army lists are great. I loved pouring through the WRG 6th books for armies I could create. Sometimes I liked the history (Alexander, Rome etc) and chose the army because of that, sometimes I liked the type of army which suited my style of play (if ancients think lots of cavalry). This would then spur me on to reading about the history of that army. |
OSchmidt | 05 Dec 2014 6:09 a.m. PST |
One point of note. One of the chief points of recognition of a person in the toxic gamer group is they are ALWAYS carping about how bad the system is, how unrealistic it is, and how we have to play the games as written, NOT modify or change a game system with flaws and make it better. Once you change systems for something else the new ones are exactly the same with the same problems for that player. They however will NEVER suggest a system or alternative, and they are always and forever "carefully evaluating the systems and rules and don't want to recommend something till they have the perfect one. Note the contradiction. The point is they LIKE the arguments, disagreements, angst and trouble because it wrecks the game for everyone. We had a guy like this in our group once. He would play Avalon Hill's "Civilization+ or "Junta" and wanted everyone to play like he did. This in spite of Junta's obviously burlesque of real life. Let's call him Don. We liked to act up and have fun, but he would carefully analyze strategy to optimize the results and would get enormously bent out of shape when we turned it into a comic free- for all. So one day we were sitting down to the game and Don said "OK, now I want to get an agreement from you all that you are playing to WIN!" We all nodded our heads. "I mean really WIN! Not try and cut up and do stupid things!" We all noded our heads. "I mean you guys are going to try to win according to the rules, you're not going to do things other than that." We all nodded our heasds. So Don then goes to the bathroom and I turn to the guy next to me, Billie, and ask "We're playing to Dick Don right" "Of course" he answers and everyone else nods their heads. In one Junta Game, Don, who analyzed everything to the last degree complained loudly about other people's policies and how they were letting me win!" When they said "How are we letting Otto win?" "Look, look at all those $$$ he has in his shirt pocket!" I said "Oh-- these? Sorry Don, but these aren't game money, they're coupons from my dry cleaners, I just picked up a load of dry cleaning on the way here. Only about a quarter inch stuck out from the pocket, but it was easily mistaken for game money. Don, who Analyzed everything had neglected to note that I was giving all the money away that I got as El Presidente. Don was even more enraged when Billie noted that "Otto's been giving each of us exactly the same, and taking almost nothing for himself. Why should we vote for you as El Presidente when we know you'll do it completely different. We all get a much better deal from Otto." |
McLaddie | 05 Dec 2014 8:27 a.m. PST |
The game is completely irrelevant to having fun. It's the guys you are playing with that make it fun….The point is they LIKE the arguments, disagreements, angst and trouble because it wrecks the game for everyone. O'Schmidt: Then the hunt for the perfect game really should be the hunt for the perfect group of guys. Certainly if you don't enjoy the people you play with, you aren't going to enjoy the game. However, I know a good game is more enjoyable than a bad game with that great bunch of guys. As someone who designs games, I enjoy exploring new game systems, see how they work while playing, so I will do extreme[aka stupid] things at times. This is okay with some guys who enjoy it too, and annoying to others… within that same great bunch of guys. So, I don't do it all the time and usually announce when I'm going to do it. In that Junta game, it looks like you did play to win… spreading around El Presidente's influence/money and the guys enjoyed jerking Don around to boot. |
Le Bovin | 05 Dec 2014 10:47 a.m. PST |
@MajorB: The "fun" of DBA lies within the immense variety of different armies that are represented, and the wide range of tactics those armies require. The game is not that much fun with 12 blades vs 12 blades. by opposition, a WWII game involving only a three squad platoon of rifles in each army can still be super challenging and fun in Chain Of Command; thus I say that the "fun" of CoC lies in the basic rules. in the same vein; the tactical depth of chess lies within the different move capacities of the different peices… if you includes only pawns, then it turns into checkers… Chess = fun in the "army list"… on the other hand, the game of GO does not rely on different rules to create challenge… all peices are identical and simple; the fun is in the basic rules. @Jamesonsafari: I like your idea of "A good set of rules with lots of decision points." Yes, with many set of rules, the list of interesting options at any point is REALLY limited. Sure, I could do many things, but the only interesting option is to stand and shoot… An interesting game should REAL decision points; many valid options, and, preferably, big downside to each choice! even more heartbreaking to decide then! @Tango 2 3: I hunted for crossfire for many years while it was discontinued… the only copies I found were outrageously overpriced; still have to try it at some point… I really like the idea of noin-fixed time scale… @JezEger: Completely agree on all points; this is why my current favorite games are DBA, Ganesha's song of x, and CoC… all very simple, with rare reference to the book. So, yes, this is a important criteria for me. I also completely agree about the potential fun of lists; FOR HISTORICAL wargames. A pass time of mine is to randomly poke at a list in DBA, find out that I have no clue who they are, then go to the web to find out about them… But… this does not apply to any sci-fi or fantasy game list. These lists are the ones that I have problems with… not much fun to be had there, except try to brew up killer combos… which I really don't like to do… I want to be able to win with the regular "joes", "tommies" or "jerries"… ------------- To summarise my question: What other games exist that have their fun/tactical depth/challenge "built-in" in the basic rules? |
jwebster | 05 Dec 2014 10:59 a.m. PST |
At a club session I looked around once and at every table people were engrossed in looking up things in the rules books So there is huge benefit to really simple rule sets as they encourage the game to flow better – perhaps one way of having fun in the game Agree with all the comments about group interactions. There is a management concept of Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. So a group of people who know each other well can behave differently from a group that is just getting together or discovering that people have different objectives. That might be an interesting observation for a set of rules. A simple rule set might be good for people starting to work together and a more complex set for a group that has been working together for years. Thanks
John |
MajorB | 05 Dec 2014 11:37 a.m. PST |
The game is not that much fun with 12 blades vs 12 blades. I don't think I ever said it should be? Besides, as far as I know there isn't a 12 blade army in the DBA lists. |
Le Bovin | 05 Dec 2014 12:00 p.m. PST |
I meant: "the game WOULD NOT be that much fun with 12 blades vs 12 blades"… This comment was only to demonstrate that it is the diversity that makes DBA a good game… |
MajorB | 05 Dec 2014 12:25 p.m. PST |
I meant: "the game WOULD NOT be that much fun with 12 blades vs 12 blades"… This comment was only to demonstrate that it is the diversity that makes DBA a good game… Agree wholeheartedly. I don't think that point was ever in dispute? |
McLaddie | 05 Dec 2014 1:33 p.m. PST |
What other games exist that have their fun/tactical depth/challenge "built-in" in the basic rules? Even the simplest miniature wargame is more complex than most other types of games around unless you count board wargames and fantasy/RPG games. The game designer Raph Koster [who has done board wargames and computer versions among other types]wrote a book called: A Theory of Fun for Game Design which is a fun book in itself. Some of the first questions he asks are: "Why are some games fun and some games boring?" "Why do some games start getting boring after a while, and other games stay fun for a long time?" In the book, Koster provides a number of ways to identify those games that have "fun/tactical depth/challenge "built-in" in the basic rules." Often simple games are the first to go stale, with optimum moves sussed out, ending up being as challenging as tic-tack-toe or checkers, while a few provide long-lasting depth and challenges. For instance, what made fairly simple games like Diplomacy and Monopoly enjoy such extended lives, while many others came and went? |
JezEger | 05 Dec 2014 2:42 p.m. PST |
"What other games exist that have their fun/tactical depth/challenge "built-in" in the basic rules?" Space Hulk. Never been beaten in my book. |
DyeHard | 05 Dec 2014 3:57 p.m. PST |
I think what really does it for me is "lots of decision points". And ones with real consequence. As two extremes point out "Space Hulk" as very simple game, but since you can not pre-calculated the risk of your decisions, it really transports you into a different mindset. (A sergeant's go with your gut thinking) And Advanced Squad Leader (ASL). A single squad or leader move seams like the world hangs in the balance. This is perhaps the most rule intensive game ever made (the opposite of Space Hulk), but puts me into the same mental space, that every move may be my last. They are both very scenario driven systems, with no army list building for the end players. I must admit to hating the max-mining of army lists. I think good games also forces the player to think in the role of a particular level of command. "On to Richmond" is another simple set of rules that makes you think at a certain level of command and makes the each decision seam very important. If the game requires to to think at both a sergeant level and a General level, it blows the tension of the decisions, and as a result the fun. For example if you have to worry about weather or not to move a company and then what exact angle to set them on the table, That is mixing two levels of command decisions, and is a mistake in game design. |
CATenWolde | 06 Dec 2014 3:17 a.m. PST |
Meaningful player decisions, enacted at a pace that keeps the player invested in his decisions. Too many games mask really meaningful decisions by swamping a player with micro-decisions, or by taking too much of the control away from the player and simply having him act as a cipher for chaos. Likewise, many games operate at a pace that delays the results of those decisions for so long that the emotional impact is lost. |
Dynaman8789 | 06 Dec 2014 6:45 a.m. PST |
CA TenWolde hits a bullseye. Could not say it better myself. Examples of two games I think get close to the ideal. ASL – with all the complexity it is one of the games where multiple VALID choices exist to the player to accomplish the mission at hand. There is only very rarely a best way of playing a scenario (and I think there are over a thousand scenarios published for the system by now) FireBall Forward – Also a game with multiple choices on how to accomplish a mission without being straightjacketed into a "best" way of doing so. |
McLaddie | 06 Dec 2014 10:31 a.m. PST |
Game designer Sid Meier said that "Games are a series of interesting decisions." I agree: The player engagement is in the decisions. Also a game with multiple choices on how to accomplish a mission without being straightjacketed into a "best" way of doing so. That is what keeps a game from being 'solved': There is no 'best' way to win. Chess is like that. So are card-driven board war games like the ACW game For the People |
Ottoathome | 07 Dec 2014 6:17 a.m. PST |
McLaddie Obviously you have never played Junta. Junta is won by having the most money in your Swiss bank account. I always would up with three or four million where everyone else was in the 20's and 30's. Including Don. And Yes, the search is not for the perfect game, but the perfect bunch of guys. |
McLaddie | 07 Dec 2014 12:15 p.m. PST |
Obviously you have never played Junta. Junta is won by having the most money in your Swiss bank account. I always would up with three or four million where everyone else was in the 20's and 30's. Otto: I have played it… a lot in the past. Fun game. I meant that your objective… your idea of 'winning' with that game was achieved… So, after a fashion you were playing to win… And Yes, the search is not for the perfect game, but the perfect bunch of guys. Now, that would be an interesting discussion: how one goes about that search. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
OSchmidt | 08 Dec 2014 8:33 a.m. PST |
Very simple Birds of a feather flock together. |
McLaddie | 08 Dec 2014 12:30 p.m. PST |
Very simpleBirds of a feather flock together. Birds flock together by recognizing each other with bird calls: [some examples… easy to recognize with large flocks congregate] The Red-headed Tourney "Da Points, Da Points" The Black Bandersnatch: "Ack-racee, Ack-racee" The Crested Fiddler: "Change-it, Change-it" The Round-eyed Booker: "Re-search, Re-search" The Humming Flee-flicker: "Fun, Fun, Fun, Fun" The Rainbow Diver: "Brush, Paint, Brush, Paint" The Tight-banded Wader: "Truuue Scale, Truuue Scale" |