"Scenario Design Blunders" Topic

So, come clean. You know you've done it too. Set up a game that, 2 turns in, you realize you've made a horrible mistake and the game is whacked. I can think of two bad days myself, one fixable, one not.

1) World War 1 naval. I used a larger table than normal with "blinds" for some fog of war. Only to realize we were 12 turns away from the first possible spotting attempt due to the table size. Went to double speed, simultaneous movement.

2) In a space bugs game allowed the bugs to enter on the short side of the table. Space troopers defensive position became an open buffet by turn 2. Drinks were on me!

What's your horror story?

I converted a boardgame, S&T "Kanev" into microarmour using Firefly rules.

Within a few turns I realized:
1. A german recce bn, which is pretty weak in the boardgame, is quite capable in the miniatures game. By itself, it destroyed most of the Russian paratroopers holding a town.
2. It doesn't matter if your force consists of Tigers and Panthers. If the turn immediately after you arrive on board, a Soviet brigade of T-34s shows up to your rear, you are truly hosed!

I organized a huge British vs Zulu game at a convention using hundreds of figures borrowed from several different owners. The Zulu force was so big that it bogged down the game and then the British couldn't kill enough of them to keep from getting swamped, a la Isandlhwana. Although all the players "said" they had fun, I as game master thought is what an abysmal flop.

Jim

P.S. We actually got all of the figures back to their right owners after the game. The only high point as far as I was concerned.

I went to a Cold Wars with an uncharacteristically un-playtested Tarawa scenario and ran a test game with guys really familiar with the rules (Arc of Fire). Almost two hours later we hadn't finished turn one. In a complete panic I called the scenario designer and late Thursday night we figured out ways to speed it up-- primarily activating multiple units on each card. It worked perfectly and each "official" game over the weekend played to very fun and satisfying conclusions within the allotted times. I will NEVER again take a scenario to a con which I haven't run!!

A german recce bn, which is pretty weak in the boardgame, is quite capable in the miniatures game. By itself, it destroyed most of the Russian paratroopers holding a town.

That isn't a scenario design blunder, but rather a significant difference in unit capabilities between the two rule sets.

It doesn't matter if your force consists of Tigers and Panthers. If the turn immediately after you arrive on board, a Soviet brigade of T-34s shows up to your rear, you are truly hosed!

Being attacked in the rear by ANYBODY should be pretty catastrophic. Again, not a scenario design failure, but a perceived lack of understanding of the effctiveness of rear attacks.

Almost two hours later we hadn't finished turn one. In a complete panic I called the scenario designer and late Thursday night we figured out ways to speed it up

But again this is not a scenario design fault but a fault of the rules since as you say a rules tweak fixed it. A rules tweak would not fix a scenario design fault.

MajorB, curious as to what you'd consider a design fault. Something like impossible objectives?

Indeed, that one is a classic. "You have X moves to get one or more units off the opposing player's board edge". Only problem is that in X moves you cannot reach the far edge …

The only really big scenario blunder I ever committed was once I made a scenario which was hopelessly imbalanced. I realized it a few moves into it but I was saved because the guy with the hugely superior side was so inept that the other side fought him to a standstill. Mistakes happen. What I felt truly guilty about was the compliments I got from all involved as to what a great and balanced scenario it was.

Needless to say I kept my mouth shut and moved on.

I've been in another one which was one of "corporate" guilt. This was way back in the 70's and I was gaming with a group of gamers who played in a high School. The School had this huge ballroom, about half the size of the Distellfink at the Host. It had squares of linoleum. We set up this HUGE modern game on the squares of linoleum and were going to use that as a movement system and got out every last tank, troop, and gun we had. It looked great through the binoculars everyone brought. Well six hours later we still had not gotten within 30 ft of each other and the day was starting to wane. The commanders had been reduced to hopping onto the models of planes we had and strafing the enemy to get SOMETHING killed.

It was a lesson to me that if it's not on a table top, don't get involved in it.

Same as MajorB

Objective: leave table by road X in y turns. Even at full speed players would need Y+ turns to get there. same with objective placed on the opposite side of the board. When I design my own scenarios I really try to figure out how many turns at half speed then add a few

I just remembered another story. This was a space combat pick up game. The background was Babylon 5 (about which I knew nothing). So I said to the GM just give me a nice meat and potatoes force, which he did. I faced big wispy purple things that (a) outranged me and (b) were faster. Ugh.

So I just made a hard left, cutting across the front of my "ally" just to find something I could engage with some kind of chance. Luckily everyone "got it" and it was a good group so no hurt feelings anywhere.

Too much space between the armies, particularly in games with low movement rates.

That's one I've screwed up countless times, leading to a dull opening game.

Spent a lot of time painting figures and a friend set up terrain to game Gloucester Point. Turn 2 the French cavalry routed off the table. Infantry couldn't catch the wagons. Game over.

Yes space vs time or terrain that would prove to be obvious for defense too close from the edge and too far from the enemy: lost time, lack of manoeuver space, end for useless lack of space.

Night naval who missed each other.

Starting from edge with troops in Legacy of Glory, would not pass orders and then allow the enemy to actualy even by pass them.

Not enough space again as a river proved it would cut the table in half. ( short side) Lacked incentive to have troops on other side.

Another classic scenario mistake is the river crossing game with only ONE crossing over an otherwise impassable river.

Yeah, I've the river with one crossing thing in a game before. Never worked out as a fun scenario.

More annoying than the blunder itself, is if one player insists to keep on playing once the blunder has been discovered in turn 2, instead of quickly adapting the scenario.

Three-player pickup games. I keep telling myself I'll never do another one, and then someone's friend can't make it and it would be a shame to leave them out and not let them get their stuff on the table…

Someone always, always, always gets ganged up on and has no fun. A good scenario or unbalanced force sizes can solve the problem, but never any kind of meeting engagement "2k points and have at thee".

I have been running a lot of AWI games lately using The Sword and the Flame.
I like to simply say that all muskets are carbines, Continentals use Egyptian morale etc.
I made a huge blunder saying that all militia were Boers, forgetting the Boer ranges. Then I started the forces too close together. Poor jaegers. Wiped out in one turn.
I have now corrected that to militia firing as Egyptian carbines with Boer morale.

one time i was going to my friends how to play an ACW game with a set of rule HE never used, Piquet: Field of Battle. he set up the scenario and had union reinforcements come on 2 turns after the game started. i tried to tell him it would not work in the rules, but he insisted. so when 1/3rd the union forces were routed or destroyed before the end of the first turn, he started to agree with me.

you can do this kind of thin in more traditional games but Field of battle is designed with a normally fairly long run. the game rarely runs more then 2 or 3 turns, unless a lot of doubles are rolled for initiative. generally if using a scenario with "turn" restrictions, i make them "move card" restrictions. it works way better in our chosen system.

Major B,

I don't consider this a "rules" issue. the guy who designed the scenario was warned before the game started that it would not work under the rules used, and STILL went ahead. the scenario design/designer was at fault. Building a scenario for a game you don't understand or have never played is a blunder all on it's own.

another blunder that I've not done, but seen done at MANY conventions, is having one player play ONLY a reinforcement force that comes on a few turns later. while it may be a valid mechanism, having one player wait for that turn i think is a blunder. I have seen a number of games where this reinforcement force is ready to come on, the player has already lost interest and wandered off.

I've had skirmish scenarios where it degenerated into one figure per side remaining where no side had a victory point lock without taking out the last man on the another side. In this case, to avoid a drawn out stalemate, at least one player has to not be tentative and take a "No guts, no glory." move.

Occasionally, I've seen scenarios become that game of dodgeball in gym where there's that one kid left who can't throw, but nobody can hit either (which, BTW, was not me … I could always be hit). So one side has a small number of figures left who must be eliminated for opponents to win. They evade destruction/capture but are not able to muster the strength (or opportunity as they are running around only able to avoid termination) to win. Again, this then takes a player with the grace to acquiesce or the testicular fortitude to charge the Russian guns.

Major B,

I don't consider this a "rules" issue. the guy who designed the scenario was warned before the game started that it would not work under the rules used, and STILL went ahead.

Yes, I agree. It all hinges on what we mean (or think we mean) by "turns"!!

In addition to the above:

1. Players that have to roll to move.
2. Playing longwise on the table with each player coming on in a conga line behind the first.
3. Impossible odds (some rule sets have no-win match-ups where even the best die roll versus the worst die roll does nothing).

3. Impossible odds (some rule sets have no-win match-ups where even the best die roll versus the worst die roll does nothing).

I explicitly designed that out of QILS. Within the rules, you can't design an invulnerable unit. You can design one that is (or becomes) ineffective. You can also design one that could possibly kill any other possible unit, though that Pk can become arbitrarily small.