"Why I write my own rules ..." Topic

I like writing my own rules …

… because I think that wargaming as a hobby is about designing your own game, not playing someone else's game.
Just as we hunt for the perfect figures to use, paint them ourselves and engage in building scenery, I feel that constructing your own rules is part of the wargaming experience. A wargamer should design and build the entire game himself. But of course, one should not be too dogmatic about this philosophy. After all, I don't sculpt and cast my own figures, nor do I carve my own dice out of wood.

… because published rules also contain quite a lot of arbitrary design choices.
When I started out my career as a wargamer in my late teens and early twenties, I slavishly followed published rules. My impression at the time was that wargaming rules were the perfect representation of how battles had happened, and that rules designers spend years honing and polishing their rulesets, based on original research. However, after a couple years, you start to learn that published rulesets do contain a lot of arbitrary design decisions, ranging from game mechanics to army lists to point values to die modifiers; and that the "deep research" is not so deep after all. Once you realize that a published ruleset is just written up by another fellow wargamer instead of an all-knowing demi-god – the step towards modifying published rules or writing your own suddenly becomes much smaller.

… because wargaming is about telling stories, not simulating war.
Although I know that some wargamers see a wargame as something that should recreate the commander's experience, I see a wargame more as a tool to tell stories inspired by military history. I understand that if you consider wargaming as a way to simulate (for lack of a better word) a real battle, a well-researched ruleset is a necessity. But I have evolved towards another approach, in which the purpose of a wargame is not to learn something about how battles were conducted, but as a way to tell stories inspired by military history. In that sense, the rules should support storytelling, and should not support the idea of running a simulation. This provides much more freedom in writing rules and injecting elements that are not aimed for historical recreation, but are aimed at providing drama at the gaming table. As such, one should not be too worried about the historical validity of wargaming rules. As long as the rules provides an exciting game, it's ok.

… because developing rules is fun.
I like tinkering with game mechanisms. I like playtesting various ideas. I like the creativity. That's why I like wargaming as a hobby so much!

(Also published on my blog link )

Can't disagree with you. But we can't be so dogmatic that we only play with our own rules, or this will become a hobby of solo gamers.

Otherwise, well said!

@ Phil,

Have you knowingly incorporated something ahistorical into a game? I was wondering what things you had exaggerated to make into a more fun game? (Not a criticism, plenty of rules writers do it)

" because wargaming is about telling stories, not simulating war."

That is important to me a game that tells a believable story is a good one. Of course that means getting the mechanics right. I like the PK approach but some don't.

nor do I carve my own dice out of wood.

You haven't lived until you carve your own dice. And it's a great way to roll a lot of 6's

wargaming as a hobby is about designing your own game

I disagree with this statement. Wargaming is ultimately about having fun. There are aspects of the hobby that are necessary, which people may or may not enjoy. Take for example painting figures. Others enjoy it but I hate it. Does that make me less of a wargamer? No, because the end result (a fun war game) is the goal. I could do that by buying pre-painted figures. I see rules-writing in the same light. If you like it, do it. If not, there's nothing wrong with a shortcut (i.e. published rules) so you can get to the end result.
I appreciate that you are not dogmatic about this point, though.

wargaming is about telling stories

I enthusiastically concur about this point! It's why I really enjoy blogging and why I have largely abandoned historical gaming for fantasy, sci-fi, and imagi-nations.

If wargaming is about designing rules, I have never wargamed in my entire life!

Good for you, Phil. Life's too short to spend it muddling about. Find what you enjoy and do it! Nice one.

Cheers,
Aaron

I do like to design my own rules, too. It's part of my hobby. I do play commercial rules too, though.

I've played all of the most popular rule sets and have copies of dozens more. I like writing my own WWII 1:1 tank-infantry rules because:

Most rule systems don't deliver the low level experience I'm looking for. Using arbitrary values to fit the dice you are using does not really describe armor, penetration and chance to hit a target. I'm somewhat of a gunnery nut and have studied the subject pretty closely. There is a lot of good data available that designers do not or cannot use. I understand the simple and playable rules that are in demand and am not criticizing them.

Any IGOUGO or random activation system cannot duplicate the timing and nuances of crews and weapon platforms that takes place in a real 1:1 engagement. In a tank engagement a tank does not randomly move or fire based on the draw of a card or roll of the dice. Personally I have a hard time enjoying these type games, especially when my units get pounded and cannot even react until my turn randomly comes. Some systems portray this better than others but are pretty much limited to some type of modifier or command interrupt. In a 1:1 game reaction is not a command. Chance and timing may have some things in common but are different.

Since timing cannot be introduced into the game most systems try to overcome this with some type of hit modifier which is different than determining who get in the first shot. I use a system that can duplicate the timing issues for a first shot with some decision by the player. It's not by chance nor is it predictable. Units interact with each other depending on their time to perform a task. Crew differences are represented by better crews performing their tasks more quickly to fire first. Things like turret rotation and rate of fire can use historic rates without abstractions. I don't know of another system that can do this but I would be interested if someone knows of one or is working on the same thing.

In a 1:1 engagement things like over watch and opportunity fire are at the center of the engagement. Some games ignore this completely while others have artificial rules and restrictions. It's difficult to accurately portray in an IGOUGO or random activation system. I use a system the integrates over watch and opportunity fire into the timing aspect of the game so there are no additional rules or exceptions needed.

The only game I've seen that can come close is Nuts! but that seems to be reaction based and not timing but does work pretty well for small infantry engagements where reaction is more applicable than timing in a 1:1 tank engagement. I use reaction rules for infantry engagements, not timing.

If you introduced a real life tank crew member to your favorite rule set how much of his skill and knowledge could he use to play the game? Does the game use real military nomenclature and terminology? Maybe it's not a good idea because it may scare people away.

Of course this all sounds good but what about complexity? If a new player could play on his own after a 10 minute intro and going through a 3-4 turns without having read the rules prior to the game would that qualify as playable?

Thanks,
Wolfhag

I write most of the rules I play, and enjoy writing them most times, its quite satisfying when others like them too!
Games are always a balance between a perception of reality and playability. Games must be fun to play.

Good post Phil. It has me thinking about what I enjoy about wargaming. I think it is different for each and everyone of us, although there are some areas in common.

For my taste, wargaming is first and foremost a "game". So I want my game to be fun to play and part of that is for the game to be fair so there is an equal chance of either side winning the game. Kind of like playing chess, but with lots of cool looking figures and terrain. I like the idea of thinking about strategy and trying to outwit my opponent.

So, when I worked on writing my own set of rules my first priority was on fairness. To that end I made the stats for the basic soldier on either side of the battlefield absolutely equal.

I have mucked about writing rules for years, published one board game. Two other board games were abandoned because they didn't hold my interest.

I got two sets of miniatures rules near to being published. One was a grand tactical Seven Years War set. The other was an even more grand tactical Napoleonic set that used a hex grid a la Memoir '44, 9 X 13 hexes. In both cases I realized that the simple rules I'd started with had grown more complex, enough to slow the game down and perplex some of my buddies. I dumped the first set because of that. I was considering dumping the hex set when I discovered Bloody Big Battles. These rules do most of what I want and do it quickly. Does it do every last thing I want? No, but close enough and better than my own efforts.

I have one or two house rules but I try to leave them alone. I get more mileage out of designing scenarios than rules these days. If I test too many new rules my buddies will break out pitchforks and torches.

I write my own :D

But I play others as often. I just like seeing new things.

I have always developed my own rules for every period. I do look over published rules and take what I like, patch them together with my own likes, and bingo, I have a nice simple rule set that reflects the period I am gaming in. I do have 15 or so guys that game with me and enjoy the simpler rules I put together. Just like to keep it fun and flowing.

That is a perfectly reasonable approach to wargaming, Phil, and one that I think would strike a sympathetic chord with many (if not most) wargamers. Wargaming is a hobby with many diverse and not incompatible aspects, and each gamer eventually finds a balance that suits them. It is admirable that you have given some thought to what you want from the hobby, and have tailored your participation in it to match. Respect.

I see a wargame more as a tool to tell stories inspired by military history.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, although I would add that in order to hold my interest the history in the story must not be blatantly false.

Games are always a balance between a perception of reality and playability.

These are two totally independent attributes. The absence of one does not imply the presence of the other; a particular game may have both, or it may have neither. Holding the opinion that the two are mutually exclusive is like believing that a banana cannot be both large and yellow at the same time.

I bought and played a lot of different rules. Then I tried to write my own, and they sucked. Why continue to bang my head on the table, when I can get an enjoyable game out of published rules everyone in my group understands? Not that we are afraid of making simple reasoned modifications specific to the scenario. Which is what I am doing with The Sword and the Flame. I am making minute modifications to the core rules to make it play in the American Revolution.

I am not about to tell anyone how they should have fun playing with toy soldiers. I am just saying what works for me.

PS. I would avoid making arbitrary definitions of wargames and what they should do. There lies madness, since we all come at this from different directions and expectations.

Holding the opinion that the two are mutually exclusive is like believing that a banana cannot be both large and yellow at the same time.

I do not hold that opinion! a balance between playability and strict accuracy in a set of rules is present in all rule sets. If all rules made either predominant, I doubt anyone would play them!

Just keep in mind that the rules you start out writing may not be the same as your 'final' version. A lot of 'evolution' occurs throughout the (sometimes years-long) process… ;-)

Nice write-up with a good point of view. For me the first and third points don't hold. For me, wargaming is about enabling a group of people to tell their own story. It isn't a boundless story that can expand in any direction, but I feel it isn't a wargame if the players' choices in how to collaborate, compete, and what objectives to pursue don't drive the story. I enjoy writing rules, but I enjoy writing scenarios better for this reason.

What is this "telling a story" that so many wish to do?

Good piece, Phil.

Good post to get people responding.

I like writing my own rules, but of course, like you, I like hexes, so some home writing and conversion is necessary.

There may also be a generational thing in which 'old school' gamers are used to doing more things for themselves simply because the commercial support way back was no way as sophisticated or developed as it is today.

One thing for sure, I am increasingly looking for simpler and fun, I want to play a game, not model the myriad of of things that need to be modelled to get to true realism and in that regard my tastes have substantially changed.

I like it that we have so much choice these days.

I have written so many sets of rules and some never leave the design phase and don't get played….I'm a tinkerer!

Winston – it's for young people :-)

Great post, Phil.
Tinkering with rules is kind of assumed down the local club. Introduce any game and invite players. They will routinely assume you will appreciate suggestions for changes.

Another factor to consider.
You can buy a lot of rules and try them out only to find they don't quite hit the spot you were hoping for.
You can spend a lot of time looking.
Way quicker and more satisfying to fix up, merge and generally tinker.
You pretty much had to do that when I started out.

Why bother awaiting that fix or clarification to arrive from a bloke who has his own priorities.

What is this "telling a story" that so many wish to do?

Winston – it's for young people :-)

I am certainly not the oldest here, but also most assuredly not one of the young people.

Having heard hundreds of post-mission debriefs and read not nearly enough much older first-person accounts, those are the stories I am shooting for. Each person with a personal perspective on a common experience. Situations. Concerns. Decisions. Collaboration. Competition.

While I have no illusions than any player's experience mirrors that of the "real world" participants (it is something related, but different), they still have a type of warfighting experience that defines their story for that game.

After all history – analysis, context, global view, interpretation – is based on intense comparative study of these primary sources. The stories.

…because wargaming is about telling stories, not simulating war.

Phil:

I agree. Any wargame tells a story through player decisions in a dynamic cause-and-effect game process. Even so, telling stories and simulating war with a wargame are not in anyway mutually exclusive.

Although I know that some wargamers see a wargame as something that should recreate the commander's experience, I see a wargame more as a tool to tell stories inspired by military history. I understand that if you consider wargaming as a way to simulate (for lack of a better word) a real battle, a well-researched ruleset is a necessity. But I have evolved towards another approach, in which the purpose of a wargame is not to learn something about how battles were conducted, but as a way to tell stories inspired by military history.

I can get behind that. There is *should.* It all depends on what is wanted from the gaming experience. However, it is a designer decision on what to focus on.

In that sense, the rules should support storytelling, and should not support the idea of running a simulation.

If that is your design choice, what you want to focus on. More power to you. It isn't some inherent difference between story-telling with a wargame and a participatory simulation.

The same wide variety of game systems, game mechanics and procedures are used to do both, separately and together. It all depends on what you want. And because they can do both in a myriad of combinations, it isn't at all surprising that gamers would design and redesign wargames to match their particular itch.

I only disagree with the "story telling" telling and "fun" parts.

Writing your own rules because the publidhed sets lack for whstever reason is an oldie that dates back to Featherstone and Dunnigan. And yes they needed improvement as thier designs seem arbitrary or unhistorical or no fun.
Yet getting a set ready for play can be quite difficult focing you to abstract stuff, make arbitrary choices and introduce no fun stuff.
Worse, what you find real or fun or interesting isnt going to be so for the next gamer
Worse than that is the more homebrew, tbe fewer lublished sdts, lack of sales
Then again so what if you in your tank face off against nine and high dice roll wins. Ic thats what you want, and aot of rules zets are really o more that

han

Writing rules all by yourself is not as much fun as collaborating. Rules design removes the requirement that you each understand what the commercially offered rules writers mean. You are creating a work in progress. When you thrash out what the rules mean, and what the changes mean, there is no arguing about what the rules mean! That is a great advantage and a very free feeling. Of course, it can all head "south" when disagreement over rules snags occurs, and breaks up the party. May you never experience that. The solution is compromise. No one person will get every rule or change that s/he wants….

we wote our rules because the other did not fulfill our needs for a good playable simulation of our key paramaters. Commecial games tend to let firepower dominate, we were happy to simplify that a bit and get the other parts of the whole better. Terrain command and contol and artillery usage. Having written them thankfully we did a good job and have had to do little to to them despite pushing them to do more than was originally anticipated. Writing rules is hard oure WW2 set took us 2000hrs. I would not relish doing it again.

We did realise how little effort was put into commecial rules. Many concepts are fundamantaly flawed but "we always to it that way, its the way punters expect it too be" which may not (in our opinion) be optimum.

Adding histroical aspects are likely to make the game less plausible and hence interesting and the story fantasy. Nothing worse than for example the sailing ships with Infinite Improability Drive in a book "and the wind changed 180 degrees and we sailed out unnaposed. I would not want my wargame story to do that, utter pap and uninteresting.

Within the limits of the game designers parameters a playable simulation can be made and is the uptimum. Reality is weired enough without adding to it. Most none historical aspercts I se eare simple random elements that add nothoing (in our opinion) and are not fun on either side if you are trying to tell an interesting story.

But I have evolved towards another approach, in which the purpose of a wargame is not to learn something about how battles were conducted, but as a way to tell stories inspired by military history.

Phil:
I'd love to hear more of how you do one, "Tell stories about military history", without players learning something about how battles were conducted--or avoid having them learn false history.

In that sense, the rules should support storytelling, and should not support the idea of running a simulation.

Any game is a narrative, a story. "This happened, and then that happened". Oh, wait. participatory simulations do exactly the same thing: tell a story.

This provides much more freedom in writing rules and injecting elements that are not aimed for historical recreation, but are aimed at providing drama at the gaming table.

Again, those aren't mutually exclusive unless you are arguing that historical battles aren't inherently dramatic.

I have no problem with that approach and it is freeing to tell stories about military history without worrying about actual military history… It all depends on what you want to accomplish with a rules set.

As such, one should not be too worried about the historical validity of wargaming rules. As long as the rules provides an exciting game, it's ok.

That's fine, unless the assumptions behind such a design decision are based on erroneous ideas about what games and simulations can and can't do.

Such an approach also requires some work to avoid a "It is history, but it isn't" nonsense defense of the game drama provided.

… because wargaming is about telling stories, not simulating war.

That is not only a false dichotomy: That is, you can do one without the other, but denies what most all wargame designers
talk about.

Here is Neil Thomas's thoughts on this--someone designing fairly simple--even one hour wargames:

The underlying belief is that real men produce simulations of warfare, whereas little boys play games. This is actually a fallacy, for any wargame is necessarily both a game(defined as a competitive exercise played according to a set of rules) and a simulation (defined as an attempt to reproduce a given real situation by artificial means). One has only to look at the word 'wargame'. It is a 'game' of 'warfare', attempting to simulate the latter through the medium of the former--and any set of rules qualifies, whatever the level of complexity

. Page 75 Napoleonic Wargaming

Now, if you are suggesting that you are freed to be dramatic by ignoring actual military history, or able to tell stories about military history that engage players without specific details that conjure up that reality, then maybe we need to talk about what is involved in effective storytelling.

It reminds me of the movie "Fury". The clothing, equipment, atmosphere was all authentic, but the behavior of the actors was often painfully ahistorical "to increase the drama", particularly when it came to "Military History."

So, we might need to get into the technical aspects of both what a simulation does and what is involved in telling effective, dramatic stories about military history.

It just might up the enjoyment of writing rules for historical wargames.

Telling the story can mean many things to many different people. In a 1:1 tank game with infantry represented as fire teams/sections I try to interject the human factor and leadership variables to tell the story.

I have a SNAFU Chart that I've compiled from reading historical accounts of what can go wrong in the middle of a battle. It includes things like the loader slipping and taking longer to reload or loading the wrong type of ammo. Gunners can have a result of a poor shot or a lucky good shot or get their foot caught in the turret mechanism. Tank commanders can miss sensing the last shot or get caught in the recoil of the gun. Drivers can panic after being hit.

Most units are assumed to be trained well enough to carry out orders when not under fire without additional leadership influence. It's when they are under fire that leadership counts.

For infantry units I use Leadership variables to make the story more interesting. Rather than a bland and generalized variable for leadership I have them issue an "order" that will give a modifier for a specific outcome. However, the idea is that when issuing this order the leader is exposing himself to enemy fire and there is a chance of him becoming a causality (10% for 2LT's and 5% for others). This forces the player to use them wisely. An example would be the "Give 'em Hell boys" order that increases the unit firepower.

Leaders can also intervene when needed to pass an Aggressiveness or Skill Check. Let's say you have a leader with a +2 leadership modifier. He gives an order to an infantry fire team to move under fire which means they have to pass an Aggressiveness check on a 6+ with a D10. They fail by rolling a 4. The leader can intervene with his +2 modifier to get them moving but must take a causality roll. If the unit rolled a 6+ they perform without the need for additional help.

So in a Fire & Maneuver situation, the player can have his leader with the unit performing the covering/suppressive fire to suppress the enemy better or with the maneuver unit to give them a better chance of success and rally them if needed.

Good leaders increase the performance of poor units but will expose themselves to enemy fire more often.

Higher echelon leaders can attach themselves to sub units. A company commander may attach himself to a Platoon and give all of the leaders in the platoon a +1 leadership modifier. In addition, he can lead other squads or teams in a critical situation where high leadership is needed.

Some units may have a senior NCO with a higher leadership rating than a 2nd LT who can attach himself to a platoon to help out. This could be the grizzled combat vet like Gunny "Pop" Haney in the movie "The Pacific".

What happens during a game is that as leaders are used they get a "reputation" based on their success – or failure. You can kind of customize leaders to be motivational, tacticians, etc.

Tank commanders can have a "6th Sense" detecting enemy threats earlier or get an accuracy bonus because of better range estimation.

Much of the player's decisions and use of leadership will develop a leader or unit personality and end up being the narrative for the game. Randomness plays a smaller part. Some leaders get whacked on their first attempt and others defy the odds performing heroic feats of leadership and turning the tide of battle.

Wolfhag

You do well.
Mainstream rules are weak beyond description, the same engine is used from Med Fantasy to Modern warfare, but the historical variants all claim they are very accurate. So war gaming requires faith on some magical properties of dice that thrown using the same methods will produce ‘historical outcomes'. Besides most historical battles have a single correct outcome out of 2 possibilities.
The rules context will turn a simple math combination, like on a base of 6, 36 etc, from a spell strike into a MG42 burst or a laser ray, all very realistically. So mainstream wargamers are true believers, something that someone such as you seem to be questioning.
Keep on the good work, but if you find new ideas or even a new game mechanism, you owe to the community to publish that. So that others like you might find further inspiration.
In the end it is all about the minis we really love to see in action.

Telling the story can mean many things to many different people.

Wolfhag:

No doubt. But we are talking about telling a story, communicating it.

In the course of my career, I have studied storytelling because I did a lot of presenting and teaching. Here is what professional storyteller, Hannah Harvey says:

The primary work of oral storytelling is to convey the images in the mind of the teller to the listeners. Storytelling is focused on image and storyline….

Or James Hynes, Author and Professor:

Writing fiction by showing rather than telling means bypassing the logical, analytical mind and going for the gut, engaging the readers' senses, not just their minds. More important, you're engaging the readers' imaginatins and allowing them to fill in the gaps by drawing on their own experience.

What you're doing, in fact, is evoking the experience for the readers. The idea of evocation is at the heart of all fiction; it's the thing that allows a fictional story and imaginary characters to to lodge themselves ineradicably in the minds of readers.

In other words, when you tell the readers something, you make them witnesses, but when you show them something, you make them participants.

I am sure it doesn't take much to see how the above applies to designing wargames to tell stories. Wargames can be powerful storytelling machines because they automatically make gamers participants.

How do writers do this? With details that evoke place and time, just like all the details you provide, Wolfhag. And like wargames, authors talk about an 'economy' of details. Too many kills the story.

Harvey goes on to say:

Writers use their skill with words to call forth scenes from their imaginations in enough detail that readers, without really thinking about it, use their own imaginations and memories to fill in the gaps. In the process, memories, emotions, and sensory impressions are evoked.

One of the benefits of evocationi is that even though readers are doing half the work, they don't realize it, and they actually enjoy the experience. The feeling of being in the scene with the characters and being engaged by the narrative is one of the great pleasures of reading fiction. A phrase that brilliantly captures this effect comes from the American novelist and creative writing teacher John Gardner, who once defined fiction as the creation of "a vivid and continuous dream."

That dream is the "magic circle", "The Flow", the 'Imagination Bubble' of games.

The question is how to "evoke" that experience for players with game mechanics. It is as much a technical question as it is an art. How do wargames [and simulations are definitely used to evoke such experiences] do that? If you want to tell an effective story with a game system, then knowing something about storytelling is a big help.

To me it is a story or at least a narrative but of a NATO excessive much simplified to make it possible for one mind. Bizarre "fictional twists" have no place they do not add to the enjoyment they degrade it. However I find too much fiction lacks conviction. Some fiction that simply copies the real world can be interesting.

I write my own rules but have never actually finished any so it's easier to play games at the club with published rules. The perfect set of rules for Napoleonics is crawling around my skull somewhere, but hasn't leaked out yet.

If you play your rules with a group of people who have not been completely vetted, there is usually a big argument because the rules didn't support someone's particular vision of what should have happened. I would say fantasy rules are the worst on this point, but Napoleonics are at least as bad, not the least because the historical knowledge has developed so much in the last 30 years, or at least beyond the "British line beats French column, everyone else runs away from the French" point of view

I strongly support the concept that wargames have to be fun, although what constitutes fun is a completely new kettle of worms

John

Jerboa,
Thanks, I'll keep you posted. You guys on TMP have been a real help.

McLaddie,
I plead guilty to being more of a boring, logical/data crunching guy as opposed to an artsy creative story teller but I'll try:

"Once upon a time, there were three little Shermans. Along came a German Tiger and he huffed and he puffed and blew them all away"

My thoughts were that story telling was more how the players relate the action to others than what the game designer or GM does during the game. Am I on the right track or did I miss something?

However, we do try to provide some "color commentary" on what is happening or the results of an action. I'll try to explain the interaction of what is actually occurring in a tank-tank shootout and how the player's decisions are going to influence the end result. Hopefully, they can create their own narrative later that will communicate to others what happened.

I see my job as creating a visual, interactive and stimulating environment that players can immersive themselves in with some personal decisions so the action is "theirs" and not the result of some random action they are separated from (but that randomness does happen on occasion but does not dominate the game).

Having the players lay a gun sight transparency over the target and actually choosing the aiming point can give a narrative like, "Damn, the shot went high, I should have aimed lower".

When a player selects 5 seconds of aim time to ensure a hit and his opponent selected 4 seconds beating him to the punch hopefully both players will have an experience that makes for some good story telling after the game.

The best "story" I heard on Saturday night at Pacificon was how the British player in his Crusader was firing and moving against three static Italian tanks. As soon as he'd fire he would move off at an angle and be reloading. The Italian player would fire and miss the moving Crusader. As soon as the Italian fired the Crusader would stop and fire and then move out again. While he was stopped the Italians were reloading. This continued for quite awhile and the other players found it amusing. He knocked out two of the Italians before he was knocked out but they took 10-12 shots at him while he closed the distance. Fortunately for the Italian's he had a 2 pounder. He basically got inside the Italian "decision loop".

For me the really interesting thing about the story is that it was the first time the Brit player with the Crusaders had ever played a tank warfare game. I explained the concept and mechanics and he understood and used them. The Italian player was a 20+ year experienced player who has a reputation for sitting and shooting.

Half way through the engagement the Italian player said, "I don't understand how I'm missing, this isn't fair". I had explained he could hold his fire, track the target and shoot when the Crusader stopped. However, he had insisted in shooting because he thought he'd hit him. His decision, go figure.

So my thoughts are to give the players the tools to create interesting and colorful action and their decisions and tactics that will make the game fun that will create the storyline. I'm always open to improving it.

Wolfhag

Some people do not play wargames – they play find the loopholes in the rules. They know what they are going with their troops is impossible, unrealistic, unhistorical, etc, but do not care because a unintentional loophole in the rules allows it, and it allows them to win.
Yes. it is playing, and it may even be fun, at least for them, but it is not wargaming.

I always subcribe at leat in competions to the original Phil Barker that umpires will do what they think is right and they are allowed to be inconsistent. In the few competions we ran repeated, illogical and or excessive use of the umpire could lose points if not result in expulsion. By definition the umpire is right regardless of the rules and loop holes.

Interesting this topic. While we do teach players and have simple games, the ones that stick with me are the ones where you are tested to or beyond your limit. The other great reward is the haggard look on the other guy's face as he is in the same position. No need for fog of war rules at that level, it happens all on its own. To me those are the ultimate stories, they need no special rules or words, they stand entirely on there own merits.

My thoughts were that story telling was more how the players relate the action to others than what the game designer or GM does during the game. Am I on the right track or did I miss something?M

Wolfhag:
This isn't some artsy-fartsy discussion. It's about how to do something technical with the game mechanics. For writers, it's with words. What you are saying is 'the right track'.

In other words, when you tell the readers something, you make them witnesses, but when you show them something, you make them participants.

They relate the actions to each other.

So my thoughts are to give the players the tools to create interesting and colorful action and their decisions and tactics that will make the game fun that will create the storyline. I'm always open to improving it.

Writers use their skill with words to call forth scenes from their imaginations in enough detail that readers, without really thinking about it, use their own imaginations and memories to fill in the gaps. In the process, memories, emotions, and sensory impressions are evoked.

So, the question is where and how and how many 'details' are provided to create what you describe. For a historical simulation as with historical fiction, the details are very specific, as is the experience of the players. It is 'guided pretending.'

One of the benefits of evocation is that even though readers are doing half the work, they don't realize it, and they actually enjoy the experience. The feeling of being in the scene with the characters and being engaged by the narrative is one of the great pleasures of reading fiction.

OR playing wargames.

You said it: "…give the players the tools to create interesting and colorful action and their decisions and tactics that will make the game fun."

Some people do not play wargames – they play find the loopholes in the rules. They know what they are going with their troops is impossible, unrealistic, unhistorical, etc, but do not care because a unintentional loophole in the rules allows it, and it allows them to win.
Yes. it is playing, and it may even be fun, at least for them, but it is not wargaming.

Well, I see that as one consequence of 'It's just a game' and 'It's all fantasy anyway.' Of course, then it isn't wargaming… it's just gaming.

It is very natural for anyone playing any game to look for any possible advantages within the rules. That loopholes exist is in some ways unavoidable with any set of rules--look at the tax codes. If serious or numerous loopholes exist, that is a failure of playtesting.

Interesting this topic. While we do teach players and have simple games, the ones that stick with me are the ones where you are tested to or beyond your limit. The other great reward is the haggard look on the other guy's face as he is in the same position. No need for fog of war rules at that level, it happens all on its own. To me those are the ultimate stories, they need no special rules or words, they stand entirely on there own merits.

So, the question is how to design wargames that 'test' you in the ways you desire…so you have stories that stand on their own merits.

Personally, I find that when I really enjoy a wargame, at the end I am invigorated and want to do it again, not drained and haggard [an Irish cousin…], but that is just my experience.

McLaddie,
I may have been reading too much into the story telling aspect. You presented a higher level from those books that I think went over my head.

My idea of the "story telling" is what the players relate after the game or maybe better defined as an After Action Report.

I would think after every game the player has a story to tell. My goal is to try and have their AAR to their friends sound somewhat like a real AAR from an engagement.

Players talking about not rolling well to get the initiative, the command dice god's were bad to me today, the turn ended before I activated and then got hosed on the next turn or the enemy got two activations in a row and out flanked me are not exactly AAR's you read about in WWII unit histories.

That's one of the reasons I've attempted to use the namenclature and terminology from the manuals. The down side is the education curve can take awhile. With the "Time & Action" system players can perform any tactic they can find in a manual so hopefully that's what they talk about.

Wolfhag

>Players talking about not rolling well to get the initiative, the command dice god's were bad to me today, the turn ended before I activated and then got hosed on the next turn or the enemy got two activations in a row and out flanked me are not exactly AAR's you read about in WWII unit histories.

But isn't that just a failure to understand what the mechanic means?

AAR's talk plenty of units being delayed, being surprised, a local officer failing to carry out an order, a platoon being confused because the lieutenant died, tanks mistaking the enemy for friendlies etc.

But we handle those with dice rolls, because well, we have to make it a rule somehow.

Weasel,
I normally run the games at conventions and players have a wide variety of knowledge and experience. They most likely know what the mechanic means and some do translate it.

I like to observe the players and see how they approach the game and try to solve problems and implement tactics.

When you hear players discussing planning like, "If we get the initiative next turn lets do …." they are playing the mechanics. That's typical and not anything wrong with that.

The main "mechanism" I've been using is "Time & Action" to perform an activity using 1" = 25 meters scale (but any scale can be used). Moving units have a movement arrow showing the direction they'll be moving and they will move the distance of the arrow (generally 2-3 inches). This gives all players a visual and prediction somewhat like observing real moving units as you can see where they'll be in the next few turns.

The system I'm using forces the player to choose a tactic or action and then determine how long it will take to perform. They don't wait for random activation. There will most likely be a risk-reward decision that can make the time for the action variable so your opponent cannot guess exactly when your actions will occur.

Example: There is a gap of 75 meters I want to cross and I see it will take 7 turns to cross. Now the player is confronted with decisions and problems to solve. Will the enemy be able to respond and shoot at me in time? Do I want to move and evade making a harder target or take a shot at him when I move? If he's in a good overwatch position (turret pointed at the gap you want to move through) he should be able to respond and shoot pretty quickly. If you are in his 3 o'clock he may not notice you right away and take additional time to get his gun on you so it's probably safe to cross the gap without getting shot at but you can never be sure.

Shooting: If your reload time is 5 turns and you need an additional 4 turns to aim so you do not get an accuracy penalty that means you fire in 6-9 turns. Firing in 6, 7 or 8 turns will have an accuracy penalty but you may feel the risk-reward of trading less accuracy for better speed may be the best survival decision. As you can see seconds really do count in a shootout. Your decision can determine the outcome.

As you can see it's all about decisions, positioning, tactics and estimating time for actions (hence Time & Action). Better crews perform more quickly as do unbuttoned tanks.

As you can see there are no game mechanics like initiative, reaction, skill check, activation, etc to discuss after the game. If the moving tank got through the gap before the other one can fire all the player can say after the game is, "You caught me out of position and got out of my LOS before I could get a shot off." You can't blame it on the dice or a game rule. Of course a knowledgable and experienced player could say the same thing using reaction and activation rules too.

Ideally his AAR will naturally be centered around his tactical decisions and how successful he was (or was not) interacting against his opponents tactical decisions. Chance plays only a small part.

The way surprise is handled is that if attacking your opponents flank or rear he'll most likely have a delay that will allow you to get off one or two shots before he shoots.

Shooting is a die roll. I do have SNAFU's that can occur and need die rolls for them too. SNAFU's include mistakes or mishaps that add time for your next action, accuracy modifiers, misfires and jams, crew members panicking or getting injured, mechanical breakdowns, targeting mistakes, etc.

Personally I like the idea of tactical positioning and customizing a tactic or action to suit the situation and live or die on my decisions rather than random activations or chance. I can also attempt to out think my opponent in a shootout too with risk-reward decisions. If someone prefers random activations and chance that's OK as there is no bible rule telling you how to play a game. I've just taken a different approach.

Wolfhag

AAR's talk plenty of units being delayed, being surprised, a local officer failing to carry out an order, a platoon being confused because the lieutenant died, tanks mistaking the enemy for friendlies etc.

Weasel:
Yes, I agree, AARs do talk about those things but is that the same thing as the entire force experiencing those things by 'losing initiative'???

It certainly how the various rules entitled 'initiative' reflects that. However, initiative on the battlefield isn't something that is continually and solely dumped in one side's lap by the gods--or the roll of the dice. It is something won and lost by the opponents. If you read those AARs, that is the way it is presented. It is also how military men speak of initiative:

INITIATIVE AND RESPONSE

All actions in war, regardless of the level, are based upon either taking the initiative or reacting in response to the opponent. By taking the initiative, we dictate the terms of the conflict and force the enemy to meet us on our terms. The initiative allows us to pursue some positive aim even if only to preempt an enemy initiative. It is through the initiative that we seek to impose our will on the enemy. The initiative is clearly the preferred form of action because only through the
initiative can we ultimately impose our will on the enemy. At least one party to a conflict must take the initiative for without the desire to impose upon the other, there would be no conflict. The second party to a conflict must respond for without the desire to resist, there again would be no conflict.

If we cannot take the initiative and the enemy does, we are compelled to respond in order to counteract the enemy's attempts. The response generally has a negative aim, that of negating—blocking or counterattacking—the enemy's intentions. Like a counterpunch in boxing, the response often has as its object seizing the initiative from the opponent.

The flux of war is a product of the continuous interaction between initiative and response. We can imagine a conflict in which both belligerents try to take the initiative simultaneously—as in a meeting engagement, for example. After the initial clash, one of them will gain the upper hand, and the other will be compelled to respond—at least until able to wrestle the initiative away from the other. Actions in war more or less reflect the constant imperative to seize and maintain the initiative.

Page 32 Fleet Marine Force Manual MPCD1 Warfighting 1989

I highlighted the sentence above…Imagine if that instead said that initiative and response in the sense of a boxing match occurs entirely by chance on the battlefield? That is what the initiative die-roll is saying… not that units can be delayed or officers have failed to obey orders etc. etc. Those are real issues, but they are not the sole determiners of who gains initiative or why…

Initiative is something taken and lost, not some event only granted by the fates.