"Flexibility or lack of definition?" Topic

Just a discussion topic. No axe to grind.
If a set of rules can be used outside of the period it was written for (e.g using a napoleonic set for AWI) does that mean that it's systems are not specific enough to reflect the period it was originally intended for OR does it mean the different periods it can be used for are basically the same. maybe we can give examples where it does work and where it does not.

martin

The game systems are how you play. So if you enjoy playing that way, it makes sense that you want to do so with other topics. It sure seems as if a lot of people want to do that, hence the various permutations of Field of Glory, or Fire & Fury, or the Sci Fi games that are also used for 20th century naval battles, and many others.

Sometimes it seems like a stretch, like those guys who did the "Flames of War Napoleonics" for years. But I guess they really liked the FoW rules, and that's what they wanted to play, just with different periods.

I don't think there's a specifically "Napoleonic" way to roll dice, nor a way to make charts and tables that are uniquely "World War Two" or whatever. I know there are guys who get upset when a game asks them to roll a d6 to resolve tank fire or machine-guns, or whatever, but that just seems bizarre to me. Why get so obsessed over the mechanics? Isn't the overall result what matters?

When you think about it, there is very little that is truly new or unique. Most games are derivative of older games in various ways. So whether you recognize it or not, you're probably already playing game systems that were used for something else, by somebody else.

For many of the rules we play, it is the flexibility.

We've used the basic mechanics of Larry Brom's The Sword and the Flame in periods from as early as Romans versus Gauls to as late as WW2. What we've long called "Brom Standard" rules mechanics can be used for just about any horse and musket or horse and rifle period just by adjusting the basic movement and weapons range parameters.

As Garth said, if one enjoys playing games with a particular type of game mechanics and those mechanics can be applied to other periods, then why not? It sure makes doing other periods easier if you don't have to learn a whole different set of game mechanics in order to play.

Jim

The Sword and the Flame was written for Colonials, and yet it has been used for just about everything else.
I am currently codifying it for my own AWI gaming. IT works quite well.
Very few changes to the core set are needed. Add bows? Sure. Give them 12" range.
Continentals or Hessians? Egyptians.
Rifle range vs musket? Use Rifle vs carbine.
Etc.

I'll be the first to say that most such rules sets are too generic.

Rick Priestley recently said in a magazine article that most games revolve around the mechanism of move-shoot-assault. Sometimes the shooting comes before the movement but all games involve that sequence.

Putting a little more flesh on that bare bones structure, games typically involve command and control, morale, ranged combat, melee combat and movement. Everyone has a particular favourite set of rules which they think has done those elements right. So that skeletal structure, the "crunch" as Richard Clarke of Too Fat Lardies puts it, can be transferrable from era to era if you, the players, think set A for Napoleonics does it so well you can transfer that to 18th Century warfare.

But the era-specific rules, that's the "colour". That's the bit that needs house modifications. The ability to form square quickly is more Napoleonic than 18th Century, so that's a rule that probably needs modifying. Columns of assault would need removing, and other rules introduced to simulate the era would need bringing in.

This is why systems like Black Powder, Principles of War, Bloody Big Battles, FoG and the like are well played: They cover a wide era because the "crunch" part of the game works so well for so many gamers.

An ancient Roman general and a Napoleonic general are both guys on horses trying to co-ordinate 1000s of troops all arranged in close ordered blocks, either on horseback or marching. If you think rules are too generic, consider that the business of leading armies has its perennial problems that have lasted over centuries.

"maybe we can give examples where it does work and where it does not."

Well, as I am sure you are aware, RFCMs very fine AK47 v1 rules have been used for everything from Biblical chariot warfare to space marine stuff.

Their sweet spot is however twentieth century warfare, even if they were originally designed just for 1960s Africa.

Does not work – CWC, etc. The combat mechanics are totally inappropriate for armored combat.

Sure. Rules can be used for just about any period I would think. Yes. There will be modifications to pick up the salient points of that era.

DBx style games cover horse and musket, ancients, medievals modern, WW1, WW2, sci-fi and fantasy.

Piquet, from what I understand covers the same stretch.

Look Sarge! No Charts! covers everything from the dawn of time to moderns and Fantasy.

Fire and Fury covers now the entire horse and musket era. It also covers WW2. I've played a home grown medieval version before.

On to Richmond has some similar mods in the latest version from Extra Crispy/Scale Creep.

Sword and the Flame (mentioned above) has tons of mods.

I'm sure the list goes on.

I think we get too wrapped up in our game mechanics and somehow think that game mechanic A applies to ancients but game mechanic B is no good for ancients. Lets face it. We apply statistical models to an era. It really does not matter what they are, so long as you are trying to model the salient points of that era.

My 2 cents.

John

Most of the consideration has to deal with whether the modifying designer is useing just a framework or using a lot of rules for his mechanics.

It is hard for rules written for smooth bore guns to be used for pre-gunpowder eras or smooth bore mechanics for later 1800s rifled guns or 1900s mechanized. However certain mechanics such as scale, distance ranges,

It depends on what you mean by rules. When I say "rules", I mean the concepts that govern game dynamics. There are a lot of things people call rules that do not fit that definition.

From my viewpoint "rules" are inherently generic, as they embody an abstraction of real-world(/game-milieu) phenomena. The applicability of one set of rules from one milieu to another would be a function of what is important to represent either milieu. Some things that are important in one, but trivial in another could adversely affect play. Other things that are trivial in one but important in the other could be left out and corrupt the experience.

For example, if we had an ancients game where the only ranged combat was archers with similar range performance characteristics, the rules might not have mechanisms for varying probability of hit with respect to both range and equipment. This could be a problem for a game with both AK-47's and sniper rifles.

Likewise, the "better" system from the above example might have a flat mechanism for reload times of modern weapons, whereas the ancient system might need a more robust mechanic to differentiate different equipment.

Both systems, however might have rules that vary damage as a function of equipment type, saturation, and range. In that case, it could be OK just to monkey with the statistics for the units, rather than the rules.