"GAME DESIGN CATEGORIES: Benefits and examples" Topic

However, they can be fun and entertaining for the masses.

Ok, so that's one category we already have: "This ruleset is intended as light entertainment and written for the masses."

OK. So if YOU were going to describe the Fistful of TOWs game, how would you do it?

MajorB:

You've missed the point here. It isn't how I would describe the game…It is how easily I can find the qualities/descriptors of in the game I am looking for. The designer is the one who decides what the descriptors are…

It is how that rules set is grouped based on them that matters. Who cares how the game is described if I can't find it or am not willing to put in the grunt work to ferret in out among the scores of similar games. The folks at WV certainly saw the need for categorizing games because they do that. And you can see how its very inconsistent application only makes it harder to find what you want.

It is obvious that the categories used by the WargameVault don't help as much as they should, which is the point, not MY thoughts on Fist Full of TOWs. It is also obvious that several people at WargameVault have placed games in categories based on their individual, separate decisions. That is why you can find "Five Men at Kursk", described as a WWII Skirmish game right on the cover, but placed in the Strategic Campaign category right next to an old issue of Fire & Movement, which is right next to "Micro Squad: the 1:1 scale WWII game."

So, how would I describe Fistfull of TOWs when listing it among other WWII games. For starters, I would 'group' similar games in a way that was:

Consistent between all of the games using category markers that customers could see… Not because it was MY descriptors, not because it was The Right Way to describe them, but because it was useful in helping the customer easily and efficiently find the types of games they were looking for.

I am sure you can see the difficulties for the customer created by the lack of a consistent categorization of games by the WargameVault and why a consistent set would be MORE useful.

So, in terms of 'categories' there seem to be three broad ones:

Characteristics. Figure ratio, base sizes, largest unit commanded by an individual, focus on points values, etc. These might need to include bands but might be flexible. A ruleset might be in the 1:20-1:40 band, but it's individual entry could specify that it's 1:33.

Mechanics. These could simply be tags to include or exclude from a search, including IGOUGO, alternate unit activation, random unit activation, saving throws, no range bands, etc. It would probably worth looking at some of the dealbreaker threads to see what might be worth highlighting.

Gameplay. The hardest one and more subjective and reliant on an average of reviews. This could include suitability for solo/multi-player, historical tactics (don't let people mark down an army-level Napoleonic game for abstractingg skirmisher fire), speed of play

Obviously all those keywords and titles would need to be clarified with those people putting games onto the system and then a slightly different version perhaps for users of the database. Instead of game designer notes, (which I really appreciate btw Phil and you could reproduce those, with permission), you have reviewer notes.

Does all this need to be accepted by all players and rules writers? No, but you would need a reasonable team of people willing to compromise and commit to ensuring that you could launch a website with (I would say) at least 500 rulesets across a number of periods. Encourage a news page for the latest sets and make sure they go on asap, along with a review and you might over time be able to bring in other people to help expand the database. Obviously, you also need to bring in ad revenue and someone who knows what they're doing on databases and website design.

Simple, really…;)

Maybe Phil and I have stumbled onto something?

The "fun and entertaining for the masses" would be something like 40K and Bolt Action. It has easy to understand mechanics, an intuitive game structure (hit / save) very little or no use of charts. I think Combat Patrol as a card based game falls into this category. From some of the posts I've read that it is being played as WWII, War of 1812 and Star Wars. This is a big advantage for people that want a quick and easy game to push their miniatures around the board.

However, games like Tractics and Squad Leader are altogether different, even if they use the same scale and basing and dice as Bolt Action.

Example:
Bolt Action uses non-historical dice mechanics to determine hits. The designer knows he has 2 D6 to work with and designs a system in an attempt to recreate direct fire gunnery. Historical facts may guide him but he cannot recreate real tank gunnery being limited to 2 D6 and keeping it simple (no charts). He ends up with something that gives the right feel in "comparison" to other guns and armor and may give somewhat historical results. The designer cannot reference real tank gunnery manuals or firing tables being used in the development of the game because in real life no one uses D6's.

The same dice mechanics used for Bolt Action could be used for games of other periods with little modification. Another big advantage for the masses.

Panzer War would be the other extreme. I think the way he designed the game (he'll correct me if I'm wrong) was to use real trajectory and gunnery tables and develop formulas with a % chance to hit a fixed size target. Then he used D6's to represent those percentages with many modifiers and some charts. Bolt Action and Panzer War use a D6 but in a completely different way. No one has attempted to use Panzer War in Ancient War or Star Wars because you really can't.

Knowing the mechanics of Panzer War will give you a better understanding of WWII tank gunnery and battles. Playing Bolt Action knowing a gun needs a 4+ at long range (and what exactly how many meters is long range in Bolt Action) to hit means nothing in the real world other than a gun needing a 3+ is more accurate. Why? Because the designer says so, that's why.

You may be asking why don't more people play Panzer War? I'd have to say simplicity, eye candy, marketing, and retail outlets. I feel a large % of miniature players are into the visuals with just enough game rules, details and mechanics to make it interesting and entertaining and the right feel by comparing stats and results to other units. It really does not have to be based on historical research. It's all about the right look and feel.

When I attend conventions some of the table set ups, terrain and vehicles are so good and generate an immersive environment for the player almost any rule set will make it fun for all as long as the game does not bog down. So in most cases, simple is better and is demanded by the masses.

Wolfhag

Ben:

Yes. It's simpler than it sounds. The confusing organization found on the WargameVault is a microcosm of the intellectual and product confusion of the hobby as a whole.

Gameplay, [regardless of how subjective it might be] in describing a product would be handled the same way it is in other markets: The producer describes what the product is supposed to do--he identifies the target categories.

Determine a category based in the usefulness of the information for the customer, say speed of play, hours required to finish a game, number of figures needed, historical accuracy/tactics etc. and let the designers state what the game is supposed to do, designed to provide in relation to the established categories. The categorizing is accomplished.

Whether the designer is accurate in his description is another issue, a quality issue, which is not the purpose here, but it does make the designer commit to a game quality and target a particular mode of gameplay for his game rules.

Wolfhag:

So, there are designers that would not see themselves designing "fun and entertaining games"? Or just not one 'for the masses?'

What are the descriptors for the other categories? "Fun, but not entertaining?' Or 'For a very select type of gamer who like to be bored?"

Products are not promoted that way. They can be promoted as "Fun for the whole family" or "Friends and family". In other words, all games, to work have to be fun and entertaining, the question is what kind of fun. Very few games are described as for 'the masses', Angry birds or Pokemon Go is for 'smart phones', but it is definitely played by 'the masses.'

So, you could have family games, introductory wargames, my generic or evocative games, etc etc. but single category for 'fun and entertaining games' or just those games 'for the masses' is not a very useful category for a hobby.

Mcladdie, so given that the impetus is unlikely to come from the producers (or they would have done so by now), what's the next step?

McLaddie:

You've missed the point here. It is exactly how you would describe the game. Show us an example of how a particular game could be categorised.

If you can't do so, then it rather challenges your argument that we need these categories.

MajorB, there is little we actually need, particularly with regard to hobbies, nor did McLaddie use the word in the OP.

Could more useful descriptions help? I would say so. Will this discussion turn into something more useful? I suspect not, unfortunately.

"…given that the impetus is unlikely to come from the producers (or they would have done so by now), what's the next step?"

Start a site like "Plastic Soldier Review", except do it with rule sets? Reviewers can categorize to their heart's content, visitors can search and compare, and if it is a popular resource, maybe even game producers will start to "categorize" to the common format that has been proposed…

That's not the next step Zephyr1…whether the site was like BGG or PSR, there are a lot in between. You can't let reviewers categorise to their hearts content before you present them with your categories.

You've missed the point here. It is exactly how you would describe the game. Show us an example of how a particular game could be categorised.

MajorB:

I understood your question: OK. So if YOU were going to describe the Fistful of TOWs game, how would you do it?

It simply missed the point. The designer of Fistful of Tows has already described his game. He designed it, why should I try to describe it?

I was talking about creating a set of categories that help group games according to common qualities.

So, for an example, I'll pretend that I am creating the search list for wargames like the one found at WargameVault and I have developed these categories: Here is how Fistful would fit into it based on the designer's description:

Land/sea/air: LAND

Period: WWII

Turn/game length: 15 min./ N/G

Player command level: Flexible, CO to Brigde

Lowest unit org. represented: N/G

Stand Representation: N/G

Scenarios/Campaign generators: Yes/Yes

Game Features: Troop Quality/Simple Command rules/ Elegant Artillery rules

OR how about Five Men at Kursk:

Land/sea/air: LAND

Period: WWII

Turn/game length: N/G "Fast-Play"

Player command level: up to Platoon

Lowest unit org. represented: Squad

Stand Representation: individuals

Scenarios/Campaign Generators: Yes/Yes

Game Features: Dice-based command system/simple Combat system/based on Five Core System

Now, imagine you could choose any one or more of those categories to find the games you want? Does that sound like a more useful set of categories IF it were uniformly applied?

And I think you would be able to fit other games into the same set of categories with a high degree of uniformity, which is the point.

But I was thinking more specifically about game system categories when I started this OP. The above is fairly simple because it uses the designer's present descriptors, while all the games claim the same level of simulation or historical representation and relatively little about how the game mechanics work.

McLaddie,
I was selecting categories that would be specific for me and I'm a "select" group of very few.

You wrote: What are the descriptors for the other categories? "Fun, but not entertaining?' Or 'For a very select type of gamer who like to be bored?"

Actually, I think a game like "Logistics Commander" would fit the "bored" category.

Your last post seems to communicate what you've been talking about. Very good.

Wolfhag

MajorB:

I understood your question: OK. So if YOU were going to describe the Fistful of TOWs game, how would you do it?

Wel, there you are, that wasn't so hard was it? Now all you need is some kind soul to set up a web site where peopel can load up similar entries for as many games as possible. How about having a word with Extra Crispy?

link

MajorB:

I understood your question: OK. So if YOU were going to describe the Fistful of TOWs game, how would you do it?

Wel, there you are, that wasn't so hard was it? Now all you need is some kind soul to set up a web site where people can load up similar entries for as many games as possible. How about having a word with Extra Crispy?

link

Wel, there you are, that wasn't so hard was it?

MajorB:

Now, don't go patronizing me. I responded each time to what you specifically asked.

Now all you need is some kind soul to set up a web site where peopel can load up similar entries for as many games as possible. How about having a word with Extra Crispy?

Or the WargameVault or On Military Matters or… So, it can be suggested to them, but they are the ones that will have to see the benefits to make it worth the effort.

I got this from a DoD contractor that develops simulations for the military:

I recently listened to an O6 (whose only wargaming experience was the word "wargame" in his job title) castigate the wargaming community for not having an agreed definition of "wargaming" and not agreeing on whether it was one word or two …

So we are not the only ones trying to define terms.

Wolfhag

It's OK, the Department of Defense also doesn't have a definition of "war", either. Check JP 1-02.

Or "defense", though there is one of "defense support of civil authorities".

Hi Wolfhag:

Here are some definitions of games, Wargames and simulations by designers of each--just to note the similarities and differences:

"A game is a series of interesting decisions."
--Sid Meiers, Designer of Civilization I-IV

"A game is one or more causally linked challenges in a simulated environment"
--Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings, on Game Design.

"A simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time."
--Jerry Banks, engineer, Handbook of Simulation

"A simulation allows players to safely make real-world decisions and develop skills in an unreal environment."
--David Bartlett, former chief of operations, Defense
Modeling and Simulation Office.

"The object of any wargame (historical or otherwise) is to enable the player to recreate a specific event and, more importantly, to be able to explore what might have been if the player decides to do things differently."
--Jim Dunnigan, Chapter 1, "What is a Wargame?"
The Complete Wargame Handbook, 1980, 1993, and 2000

"The Primary Rule of Wargaming: Nothing may be done contrary to what could or would be done in actual war."
--Fred T. Jane (Of Jane's Fighting Ship's fame)

Now, three reasons that 'wargame' has not been defined to everyone's satisfaction:

1. Because, generally it is fairly simple: A wargame is a game about war.

2. You'll note that every definition has to do with the purpose of the design, which can quite reasonably vary quite a bit from game to simulation and all of them can be a 'wargame.' I just played a card game called "Battle Line", it has all the words and terms from Ancient battle, but it is all decoration for what is basically just a card game regardless of the terms… But as it is a wargame.

3. Because the purposes/goals of a wargame design can vary, the methods, systems and technical aspects used to build it can also vary quite a bit. That means the definition of 'wargame' really doesn't help in designing them beyond it being a game about war because it all depends on the goals and purposes of the design.

Rick Priestly just published a book on tabletop wargame design and Chapter 3 is on technical terms he uses among his design group. They are short hand for complex concepts which he notes several times are neutral concerning 'good' and 'bad.' Rather they are specific descriptors. He says it is necessary because game design [just game design] is a technical endeavor.

Those technical terms he and his buddies have come up with help them talk about and design games--they are tools used in the design process. Because the terms are just theirs and not hobby-wide, that reduces them to jargon, even though the terms are very useful.

McLaddie

While my categories that I gave for MajorB were just examples, I think you can see how IF they or other forms were used consistently, they would make

1. Categories make complexities manageable.

2. It makes finding what is desired easier, a more efficient effort.

3. Most importantly, it makes finding the beginner's rules or the ‘hard core' or *somewhere* in between far easier.

4. It provides more objective information about a model's design.

5. The objective descriptions allow for constructive discussions on specific methods that apply to only one kind of design, or differently between the various categories..

7.It provides a marketing structure for publishers and product manufacturers.

However, it doesn't provide as much of this as a technical language would:

6.It gives a structure to both critical analysis and design innovation.

I had to laugh. I saw the TMP post of "AWE 10 entering production". For the game, here is are the categories:

CLASSIFICATION
Type
Uncategorized
Category

Ancient
Fighting*
Miniatures
Wargame
Mechanisms*
Area Movement*
Modular Board*
Simulation*

How much information does that provide?? I've starred
[*] the things that really don't tell you much at all because they have no precise meaning.

Here is a more detailed description and I've starred similar words with vague or uncertain meanings:

Arcane Warfare Excel 10 (AWE 10) are rules for miniature wargaming in the Antiquity, from 250BC to 500AD.

They are the latest evolution of the Arcane Warfare Project, run by Jerboa Wargames.

AWE 10 is the first miniatures game that has no randomizers, like dice, cards or equivalent, instead it is a true mind game.

The rules have been developed using 15mm miniatures on 40mm frontage bases.

Each base represents a cohort size unit, that can fight independently of as part of a large formation, a phalanx.
The game is played over rectangular templates, by default 20x10cm, but areas of 10x10cm and 30x10cm are also used.

Features
Fast play*
Basic armies around 32 stands
Scalable*
New miniatures combat system based on choice/reaction*
Decisive combat*
Decided by player skill*
Unforgiving*
Handicap system
No dice, rulers, cards, bookkeeping or written orders.

What constitutes fast play??
Aren't all game systems based on choice and reaction?
Aren't most all wargames decided by player skill, if only as a design goal?
How is a game unforgiving?

This isn't a dig at the game. I am sure it is just fine. I am simply pointing out that a good deal of the promotional materials doesn't tell you anything with clarity. i.e. Lots of wasted print. You could almost feel them hunting for those things that players would be interested in, but having a hard time finding the right words. The "Handicap system" for instance, has a precise meaning because it is used in other sports and games.

As someone who owns no rule sets or "wargames", but who has been into minatures for many years, I do see a number of generally accepted words and or terminology. However, it would be nice to see more of this and have things more orderly and catagorized.

Reading all of the posts here is actually quite amusing for this "newcomer"…. it seems as though some folks posting just want to argue about everything and anything, some appear to resist change merely for the sake of resisting and others love to either ride coat tails or simply thow fuel on the fire.

Catagories are incredibly useful and require the use of commonly accepted terminology in order to be catagorized. What is so difficult about that ?

It doesn't mean that every single game or rule set must be locked into a single catagory.

One of the great difficulties for this "newbie" is the fact that this facet of the hobby or games sector appears to me to be in such disarray and I am spending incredible amounts of time reading through multiple forums just to find if there is anything that will suit my needs for venturing into actual wargaming in miniature.

I think for now I will continue with making my miniatures and dioramas and possibly offer some of them commercially for others to use if they wish, but as for actually gaming with them….probably not.

I applaud the efforts of those who wish to bring about change in this arena. I certainly think something like agreeing on definitions of common terms and catagories is a worthwhile effort.

Oh, and when I offer some of my figures for purchase, I will give descriptions like: 28mm, American War of Independence, American Navy Boatswain, 1776-1790 period (along with a photo)

I certainly could not expect to sell as many if listed as : Figure for sale.

Cheers,
Joe

Joez66,
Welcome to TMP. It seems as if you've caught on quickly in your assessment.

There are some very knowledgeable people here on all topics. Feel free to ask for someone's opinion – you'll get it.

Wolfhag

Oh yes…I can see that is true ! LOL

A Compendium of Wargaming Terms

This showed up on another posting but I thought it would fit here to: link

Wolfhag

I was trying not to re-open the can of worms by starting a new thread…

Opps, sorry Ben.

I know Mat McCaffery the publisher. He and his team are about as good a group as you can put together that has the experience to define some of these terms.

Wolfhag

It's alright, I think he was presenting at the last connections I went to. They ask seem like good guys. It's something I'd like to come back to at some point.