"Writing points systems is miserable." Topic

I'm not asking for help or suggestions for this one. Just appealing to your pity and sympathy :-)

There's two parts I always hate doing, when writing a game:

The first is the terrain rules, the second is any points system.

In the former case, it's mainly because my group has certain specific ways we do those and they never really change much from game to game, but when you publish a game, people of course expect to have clear-cut guidelines for how to handle it.

In the latter case, no matter how you do it, there'll be glaring flaws in the system.
If it's too open, it won't take into account obvious loopholes.
If it's too restricted, you can't design the things you want.

And if it's just right…. who am I kidding :-)

Anyways, have a beer on me while I pound away at the keyboard.

(And yes, I know I don't have to do one.. but this time around I felt I ought to)

Yeah, there's just no way to win with a points system, end of discussion.

Terrain, though, must be a nightmare to get right. I like the new 3rd Edition Infinity (aka N3) terrain rules, finally has guidelines for an appropriate amount of terrain and reasonable terrain mobility penalties.

At least for terrain guideline ideas, I strongly recommend downloading the N3 rules and using them for inspiration.

Terrain can actually be kind of tricky as well.

Some games try to cover every possible type (like ASL or Face of Battle), others just do one or two types and leave it at that.
I guess it's still a balancing act.

Appreciate the suggestion, I'll take a peek.

Go for simplicity with terrain rules.

I got a pretty simple setup for classifying terrain bits (this is for StarStrike) that I think will work pretty well.

It distinguishes between linear obstacles, area features and stand-alone features and there's a few distinguishing characteristics you can then apply to the terrain item.

That is my post title of the year!

Regarding terrain, our group has doggedly stuck to some basic "half movement", can shoot out from 2" in, hard or soft cover for years now. I think you can keep it simple…

but I want rules for my Higgs-boson-reductor agri-plates so make sure they are in there.

I'm sorry for your woes; may the blessings of Priestley fall upon you.

Why even bother with a points system? All you'll get is whining no matter how you do it.

Samuel – The challenge :)
And for this game, I felt it'd be expected to have the option.

There's two parts I always hate doing, when writing a game:
The first is the terrain rules, the second is any points system.

So why bother with a points system anyway?

And for this game, I felt it'd be expected to have the option.

Who is expecting it? I have written many sets of rules. As far as I can remember NONE of them have a points system.

I was always rather fond of the points system in AK47 which might generously be said to reflect both effectiveness and relative scarcity, or possibly it was just made up on the back of a fag packet

Gave the min-maxers no end of headaches anyway:)

A simple compromise is army lists with a limited number of options, which is a sort of points system.

There are many other systems for dividing items fairly in life, I'm surprised wargamers always go for a lengthy and contentious points system.

I am not fond of points systems but, as Weasel says, a certain section of the wargames audience expects it. If you are planning to sell rules, you have to at least make some effort to let players know what they need to 'even up' a game. Although, of course, four armoured knights versus ten light archers over an open field is a very different fight compared with the same figures on a wooded mountainside. That's almost impossible to factor in.

Major B mentions that he's written many sets of rules without any sort of points system – and good for him – but I suspect that Weasel's hope to sell rules outside his own group demands he make the effort.

For scifi games, it tends to be expected to a greater degree so I felt I should make the effort.

Of course, trying to emulate Rogue Trader adds to that.

Besides, if we don't challenge ourselves, we never improve :)

I sit somewhere in the middle with points systems. I know they can never really be balanced but I've played terrible (published) games that are horrifically one sided and no fun for anyone.

Something that assists flexible opponents in setting up a game they both (all) have a chance of winning would be welcome.

As for the last 5-6 years, most of the games I play have no point system:

Pulp Alley
Akula's Zombie rules
Howard Whitehouse's rules
Zombicide

And the only "point" game I'm currently playing is BLOODBOWL, but then, there´s no scenery in a pitch, and everybody has to interact over a flat field and tries to score a towchdown.

And I doubt I'll ever go back to some overcomplicated point systems where you have to buy separately even the socks and belt the model is wearing.

Best wishes.

For scifi games, it tends to be expected to a greater degree so I felt I should make the effort.

I know of several popular published sets of rules, some of them being for SciFi, that have no points system.

ou have to at least make some effort to let players know what they need to 'even up' a game.

There is this logical fallacy that a points system will allow you to "even up" a game. No points system can ever hope to achieve more than a passing nod to that supposedly desirable aim.

So I say again to Weasel, if the points system is causing you that much pain, then forget it. Write half a dozen good scenarios instead and include them in the rules. Some of the most popular Sci Fi rules systems on the market don't have a points system.

Your input is appreciated but I was just griping good-naturedly.

A decent points system can really help you balance scenarios, too, and I absolutely suck at doing that without a points system.

That's why I asked for (and received) a rough points system for the Ambush Alley games.

As an aside, my usual approach is to put together the base values (in this case, it's a formula actually) then go back and calculate the totals for test games.

So far, the variance is between 10 and 20% from what I can tell.

Of course, that doesn't tell me whether the formula needs tweaking or whether the scenarios were skewed a bit to begin with, but I feel it's pretty close.

One perk of a point buy system is that it forms the backbone for some hows and whys of the game setting. If you can make a robust system, you also create internal consistency and provide guidance for hackers of your game system or establish your own baseline for further expansions.

I'd consider it a worth while exercise even if you don't publish it as it will help you design hopefully more balanced scenarios and perhaps give you a firm insight on unit capability when fine tuning things before and after playtest.

Personally, I think that points systems are a mind shredder to construct and somewhat of blind alley to use unless great care is taken.

I found doing the Slammers one that, however smart one thinks the system is, all you can ever really do is make an educated guess: at best they are a vague 'finger in the wind'. A useful guide but little else.

At worst, they are an excuse for tournament play (or, at least, the 'tournament play mentality') to infect a game.

Always to be used with great caution IMHO !!

John T

I've always thought it would make more sense for a points system to be based on the AVAILABILITY of particular troop types rather than their QUALITY …

@ MajorB

The problem is that players want to use a points value to allow chess like, even pointed tournament games so – fr that to work – it has to be based on effectiveness (mixed, in GW's case, with the profitability of any individual figure or model that they'd like to sell you).

John T

@MajorB: IMO, the best points systems actually end up being 3+ different points limits.

One points cost is based on combat effectiveness (which is the hardest one to balance).

A second is based on unit availability (and says "you may only take 2 of unit X," though you may desire it to scale with your combat effectiveness points).

A third could be based on the availability of heavy weapons and specialists (what's called Support Weapons Cost in Infinity, and prevents you from taking an army of nothing but Wolf Guard Terminators with Assault Cannons and Cyclone missile launchers. This one definitely needs to scale with combat effectiveness points).

I think ASL had an availability system but I don't remember off the top of my head.

A lot of points systems may factor in availability (whether explicitly or by making certain units a bit cheaper or more expensive than they ought to be) but since it's usually a closed loop, who knows?

I always like point systems, specially in a "necromunda" type game, so you know how outclassed you are:-) sure your not always even, but its nice to have an idea of how uneven the odds are and any bonuses for winning you get if you do manage to pull off a victory…

for campaign type games anyway:-)

The campaign rules, simple as they are, will actually give you a few extra goodies.
Nothing big, but a few extra points and a few free upgrades (if you keep your dudes alive) :)