"Some thoughts on rules" Topic

I know some of you like a debate, so I thought I'd throw in some random thoughts on developing rules (I'm currently working on some home-brew modern naval rules). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts…

Note that I love D6s so all of this relates to that cube of delight. Other dice are available… I'm told.

1) Modify the required result, not the dice

Playing games where I need to modify the result I throw seems to be the wrong way round – or maybe it's just me. What I mean is; let's take a typical '4 to hit, -1 at long range'. I don't throw the dice, see a 4 and think 'yay', then take away 1 and think 'bum'.

Instead I look at the score needed (4) and ADD the 1 for long range to the score needed, so I know BEFORE I throw the dice that I need a '5'.

I know it seems daft, but since I think in this way, I may as well write my own rules PLAY this way – to modify the score needed rather than the dice after it's been rolled.

2) The 'ability rating' IS the DICE SCORE required

In my embryonic modern naval rules each ship has ratings for radar quality, area defence capability, point defence capability, etc. I'm putting these on ship data cards that (deliberately) look like 'Top Trumps' cards (nice and simple to read).

Taking the radar ability as an example a Type 42 DD has a rating of '3', a Belknap CG '2'. In short, a Type 42 needs to roll 3 or more to spot and lock on to a target but the Belknap needs 2 or more. How simple is that?!

3) Modifiers – only go up, or only go down

Much as one needs modifiers, I've decided that I will only apply modifiers to raise the score required, so I have no modifiers to lower it. Why? Because adding and subtracting modifiers slows down the game as I try and keep track of them. I want to play a game, not work out 4+1-2+1+1-1 (it's 4, by the way, but it took me a few seconds to work it out, which disrupts the flow).

4) Modifiers – too much of a good thing

I am working on only having TWO modifiers – either '+1' OR '+3'… I know it's heresy, but that's what I'm working on.

Let's say we have a destroyer trying to spot an air target with active radar. The Type 42 above needs 3 or more on a D6.

Remember there are NO modifiers to improve the odds, so the player only has to think of things that may make this harder – land behind the target, wavetop height, ECM jamming, etc, etc. The player just has to quickly decide if one of these applies, or if it's more than one – if it's just one, then add 1 to the score required (so you need to throw a '4'), if it's more that one you add 3 (so a 6 is required).

This is so I don't have to scroll through long lists of modifiers – I just need to quickly assess the situation: if, off the top of my head I can see multiple factors I know it's '+3' – I don't have to wade through a list to tell me what I already knew. The list is still there, but most players will remember the factors as they don't then have to remember whether it's a plus 1 or minus 2, etc.

So my Type 42 is being attacked by Argentinian A4s flying at wave height with Pebble Island behind them – that's a couple of problems so a 6 to lock on. There may be other modifiers in the list, but as I've already identified two that's all I need to know that I add '3' to the score required.

So this is my thinking for the rules I'm working on, and I'll continue to play other sets (including those which require other dice and more complicated sets), but play testing is showing the approach above is really speeding up the game.

Nick

Do you have to spot every turn or once you are spotted it's automatic? Because then it's really fast.

Once spotted they stay spotted while they stay within active range, beyond that they have to re-spotted.

It allows the little guy to make multiple runs to find weaknesses (I have a 'scram' rule for a/c to evade). Coupled with restrictive Rules of Engagement it makes for interesting asymmetric battles.

But the main thing about my post to to stimulate a bit of debate how we set and use modifiers and a little about capability factors.

I am working on only having TWO modifiers – either '+1' OR '+3'… I know it's heresy, but that's what I'm working on.

Not heresy, good design principle. I hope you can make it work.

I prefer lists of modifiers a half dozen or fewer items. If more modification is necessary (it often is), I prefer to switch mechanics (e.g., first figure out how many dice to roll, then figure out what score to roll).

- Ix

I'm with YA on this one. It's not heresy, it's good design. It is a lot harder to write simple rules than it is to write complicated ones. The temptation is there to just add one more modifier to cover "that thing" that came up in playtesting. Then, you have a complicated monster game. I learned that when I wrote my auto racing rules for THW.

Good luck on making your system work. It sounds intriguing, although I'm more of a sailing ship guy (airplanes ruin a good naval fight).
BWW

Sounds like a good system. A few similarities to my Naval Command set.. although I have to admit to using dice other than d6's.. I guess its a hangover from my days of playing D&D!

I definitely agree with the idea of fewer modifiers, some rules seem to attempt to accurately model every possibility by adding more and more modifiers which is often rendered pointless by the random factor of the dice roll. If I wanted that level of accuracy I would use a computer
simulation!

Good luck with the system. Its good to see a move away from the overly complex naval rule sets of the past and a bigger focus of "playability"

Rory
rorycrabb.wordpress.com

BrianW wrote – "It is a lot harder to write simple rules than it is to write complicated ones."

Truer words never written.

B

Boz – Are you still after ship forms and stuff for Shipwreck? Just reply with your email and I will send you some files.

Ayup BAV – yes please!

nickjonesinbarnsley then the 'at' symbol, then hotmail then it's .co.uk

I don't know about only modifying one way. That means the starting number has to be at the best possible situation. So that modifiers can be added for degraded situations. But, is the best possible situation the normal situation? If not you may have to add modifiers almost all the time.

If you have your starting situation as the normal situation then you may have to have plus or negative modifiers, but normally you may not have to have any.

So what if the best situation for sighting is when the sighting ship is stationary? You would almost always have to add a modifier if you ship is underway. Is that more of a chore than adding a negative modifier the few times it is stationary?

Yep; I can appreciate your point, Mobius. I'm not saying I can make it work but I have to say that so far it does seem to be working.

I suppose it depends on the default starting point. I'm assuming 'ideal' conditions so anything that compromises that is a modifier. The simplify things I don't differentiate between negative factors (i.e. it's not that some are '+1' and some are '+2' to the score needed); they're all just 'modifiers'.

Where I need to make things more difficult, for example detecting a sea skimming missile, then I'm engineering the modifiers to split them down so more than one applies. So an exocet gets a modifier for being a missile and another for being at wavetop height. That's two modifiers, so gets a '+3'. There may be others, but that doesn't matter – two or more is always a '3'.

To cope with better or worse systems I let the ship or aircraft capability factors allow for this, rather than have a modifier for better systems.

For example, to return to our exocet; a Type 42 on patrol in the South Atlantic is attacked by an Argentinian Super Etendard using an exocet. The Type 42 has a radar value of '3', so needs to throw 3 or more on a D6 to detect an attack. As above, an exocet adds 3 to the required score so I need to throw a '6'. On the other hand, if it tries to spot the aircraft then it's just one modifier – for being at wavetop height – so that would be a '4'.

On the other hand, if the USS Wainwright was facing a similar threat in the Gulf the Belknap class has a radar value of '2', so the score needed would be '5' and '3' respectively.

As always with creating rules, a lot of this comes down to deciding what to leave out, so I've tended to concentrate on actual accounts and what the major factors were. Having land behind an aircraft was a major factor in the loss of HMS Coventry according to her captain, for example, whereas with the USS Stark it was a combination of factors including the level of perceived threat.