"In Defense of ... Modifiers." Topic

How necessary are modifiers or how bothersome are they? Are a few modifiers OK, or do vast numbers of them make the game more realistic? Should Modifiers EVER be universal. For example, an argument could be made that "All French are +3" is wrong because it casts it on a racial basis in an attempt to make up for the genius of the man Napoleon.

If there are more then 2 or 3 for any one die roll it only slows down the game and takes away from any fun that could be had.

One of my fondest wargame memories…. Cold Wars, WRG Ancients tournament, had to be 100 of us playing. About half way through the first game I hear a screech from across the large room, there is my buddy Kev standing with his fist pumping in the air as he screams "PLUS 3!" Aaaaaaah those were the days.

The fewer modifiers the better. Build as much into the mechanics as possible and you need fewer (time consuming) modifiers….

I like 'em! Mainly because they can help capture flavor without several pages of text to build something into the mechanics. But they can be overdone, too.

So, OSchmidt… are you feeling rather defensive lately?

in their defense,,,yes! I have been stunned looking at some incredibly detailed rulesets, how they covered every detail. probably playable, but more than my feeble brain can handle.. Like Ron, two or three at most.
OSchmidt, all of these subjects have been great, but as mentioned on some of the earlier posts, it all boils down to personal preference.

as to universal, been there and done that. still put my brigade d'afrique, La Legion, and Guard at advantage. racist, no, nationalistic yes! but they accounted themselves accordingly.

Personally, even before the grey hair outnumbered the grey cells, they were too much like work. I still am awed at some of my old gaming group, rattled them off like it was second nature.

as in an old song…."gimme the simple life".

Having a quiet day, Otto?

Dear Bismark

True. It is personal preference.

There are no answers only arguments for or against.

It is the arguments, or more properly the reasons we do things that are important and interesting.

If it is simply personal preference then there would be little point in even having a place like TMP. Each does to his own likes. If the gap can never be bridged then there is little point in communication.

On the other hand if we do X for Y reasons, (our arguments for doing X) then others might see the logic of it and benefit thereby, and decide "Hey, I like that! That's a good idea!"

Otto

A few are quite acceptable … but not several pages worth!

I think the litmus test is that if you can't readily dredge up the modifier in your head from memory during the course of a game, than you might have too many of them.

Most of the logical ones: hard and soft cover, shooting a moving target.. I just don't have a big grip with.

Walt

No problem with modifiers.

We tend to ascribe extra modifiers because of some anecdotal evidence that says, for example, "French Curassiers can leap over a standing man." because general Kellerman ordered his cavalry to do so during the lower Slobovian campaign so we say Currassiers get +3 when charging infantry frontally because of Kellerman's exploits.

In reality, it is the only example of this and 1 example is not a very good data set to base an observation on. You get 100% variation.

Now if we follow more generalized statements about cavalry like "Currassiers, like all cavalry lose their charge impetus when moving over the broken ground" as a statement from someone like Clausewitz, we would probably find our list of modifiers shrink immeasurably.

Sorry to be so wordy.

John

PS. All examples in my post are completely fictitious. Please don't tell me I got my facts wrong.

I love modifiers, otherwise it might as well be checkers. I will agree with some above they can be and are overdone in some rules.

Xin

Eye witnesses have said Kellerman ordered his troopers off of their horses first, during the lower Slobvian campaign.

In general if I see a long list of modifiers for a given mechanic – close combat say – then it tells me the base mechanics are seriously flawed.

Long lists of modifiers send me to sleep. Use a table or seriously think about the level of granularity which is both relevant and statistically significant.

I think it's a helpful exercise to force yourself to pick out the three most important things and then SERIOUSLY consider how many more need to be factored in.

WRG Ancients modifiers were to basically add all the positive modifiers, subtract the bad ones , and generally arrive at the base number anyway.

Modifiers are fundamental. Basic combat or movement rates are the same for all armies. This would mean that an all untrained force would be capable of fighting toe to toe with a force full of veterans from many campaigns. Modifiers is a mechanic which will reflect the lack of drill training or enhance a force's ability due to having had campaigning experience.
Such a veteran force would have advantages in all combat aspects, movement and morale.

I've just put a modifier in some pigsticking rules.
Lances get +2d6 in melee if they charge
Swords get +1d6 even if they don't charge
If you've taken a lance don't fail your charge test.

Modifiers don't bother me.

Likewise, modifiers are fine and add to the realism of tactical engagements.

I play ASL.

Modifiers don't scare me off, but they need to add something to the game otherwise don't include them.

Hooray for ASL :-)

Though I'll note in ASL, the ones that are used frequently are pretty small in number. (for infantry anyways, for tanks, we still have to go down the table)

Like most good things, only in moderation.

-Will