"Do we play miniatures or clutter-a-tures?" Topic

So, what is with the proliferation of games cluttered with fancy counters, colorful cards, and excessive numbers of dice? For me, this destroys the esthetic of the game – and I thought that was the whole point of miniatures. If this had been the trend when I started gaming in earnest I think I would have stuck with board games.

Of course, to each their own. However…

Now, again, about those dice – has everyone forgotten the elegance of 2d16, that pairing gives so much more than a simple bell curve. And it minimizes the need for so many dice. Or is it just game designers who feel compelled to use bazillions of dice. Seems like one more slow down to play. And faster play is a better game – at least on the fun front for me.

And, yes, I realize there is a lot of creativity in some of the counters and certainly in many of the cards. But do they really improve the look of the game? Certainly not to me.

If the orientation of the figures can relay to the information fine, but sometimes you need z counter as a reminder.

And if you're energetic and creative many counters can be replaced by a miniature. An ammo box for out of ammo or an officer saving a sword for a unit that is broken and needs to rally etc.

Good lord, you don't like it then don't play.

There are ways to keep the markers off the table. Be creative using non-intrusive things on bases like small stones or clump foliage. You can also mount single figures loading or casualty figures in ways that signify status. You can also make small index cards for each unit kept off table on which you can place your markers and cards.

I'm with Dynaman.

We generally build our own relevant counters that look correct with the affected unit.

As for the buckets of dice issue; I agree that any action can be broken down in such a way that you can get the same result with 2x6. I think the popularity with buckets of dice is that it tends to be used in games in which the "defender" rolls also, allowing both sides to stay engaged in the game. Not a bad thing. Otherwise the defender sits back and passively watch his opponent.

I don't have a problem with either mechanism, recognizing the reason for which they exist.

I made a chart to replace Buckets O Dice with a base 6 die roll (11-66). You roll to hit, he rolls to save. Keeps the dice under control, and speeds game play up quite a bit.

The OP makes a big assumption here: that the aesthetic of the game is "the point." I agree and loathe games with loads of chits and markers. But there are many reasons to prefer miniatures to board games, the aesthetic is just one of them.

If you only have one or two it is easy to make them – long twig = gone to ground, white smoke puff = suppressed. But some games have a dozen different markers, and units may have multiple markers.

2D6 are handy and easy but makes the math more challenging for designers. If A is 5% better than B, how do you show that in 2D6? +1? In buckets you just add 5% more dice….easy.

And as for saving throws, they are really just "math adjustment" throws. I do like they keep the defender engaged/involved. But again, having to count 11 dice, roll, sort saves. Yuck.

EMW, where do I get those 16-sided dice you mention? They sound awesome!

d16s and more! link

Bell curves don't go well with fixed modifiers. +1 to a 11+ roll is far different to the same modifier on a 8+ roll. As Extra Crispy says, it is easier to get the math right on buckets o' dice.

Dale- I know that a +/- in the middle of the curve has a greater impact than at either end, but sometimes that is exactly what a game designer is looking for. (I know it's not really a Bell Curve). Take, as an example, a Morale Roll- modifiers at either end of the curve, have a small impact, because it is more of a forgone conclusion, and the designer might like that. Whereas being behind that fence, if you are looking for a 7, is a much bigger deal. What I'm saying is that sometimes a designer might like the fact that a modifier has a different contribution when things are "if-y" (in the middle) that when things are almost automatic (either end).

My favourite rule set uses 1xD6 and 2 average dice. We use small tokens to indicate morale state, so minimal clutter.

D16s, D14s, Blank Dice. Get em right here:

link

Like the OP, my personal preference is to have markers as scenic as possible, rather than cartoonish or anachronistic. However, I don't see anything wrong with using colorful dice, tokens, makers, etc., especially given the number of really cool items on the market now. Companies like Litko, Corsec, Fight's On, etc. have made a whole niche industry out of such neat-o little thingies.

Now, again, about those dice – has everyone forgotten the elegance of 2d16, that pairing gives so much more than a simple bell curve.

Funny you would say this now – I had just finished converting the RF&F AWI charts to use 2d6 (instead of 1d10) when you posted this, because I prefer bell curves.

That said, I think you're being a bit harsh. There are lots of possible dice mechanics, and some are better than others at generating a particular "feel" or achieving an appropriate level of randomization for the game or a particular procedure. I get annoyed at dice mechanics that are inappropriate or unnecessarily clumsy. Percentile dice, "saving" rolls, buckets-o-dice, 1d10, change-size-of-die-up/down, etc. have all been fads at one time which may have been perfectly appropriate in the original context and some of the copycats, but were totally inappropriate in others.

- Ix

+1 to everything Extra Crispy said, except:

The OP makes a big assumption here: that the aesthetic of the game is "the point."

I actually agree with this assumption. Board games and computer games have much greater capacity for simulation, purely competitive mechanics, and clean game design. Introducing 3D miniatures and scenery compromises all of these things, and also increases preparation costs (money, time and effort) to the system, and often each game session.

- Ix

Okay, firsts – yeah, oops, 2 x 2d6 (though a physical d16 would be interesting).

I am not opposed to a variety of dice situations and/or mechanics but I find buckets of dice excessive – not only in the time constraint (and the hunting for the ones that went off the table) of calculations and the possible hitting figures or terrain items but it rarely yields improved odds situations. Whether we use d4, d6, d8,d10, d12, or d20 a limit to just two or three per role – including opposed roles, which I have no problem with because of the aforementioned engagement of each side – seem able to handle most any situation we might want. Though I like the idea of just one type of dice most of the time, maybe two or three for specialized situations. Obviously, my preference is for 2d6.

Like several others have commented, esthetically pleasing counters are just fine or at least unobtrusive ones. I started down that path with JRII, instead of red, yellow, and blue pipe cleaners, I used tan, brown, and green. It was but a tiny step but it did improve the look of the game. Never did properly sort out the counter issue entirely but have experimented with wooden jewelry beads in various shapes and colors, all earth tones. They look like barrels or crates in my chosen scale of 15 mm so are less obtrusive.

In the end, I'm seeking fast and simple rules with minimal dice and minimal counters (or none!) on the table to maintain the visual appeal. We each have our own "holy grails" and this is mine.

But I have noticed a lot of new rulesets with a plethora of counters, cards, and scads of dice needed for play. Not going to sell those to me.

Now, if some smart company were to create a range of game counters that looked like piles of boxes, barrels, grain sacks, stacks of cannon balls, etc. in 15 mm and at reasonable prices (profitable but not extortionate), that company would sure crack open my wallet. And, yes, I know there a few companies with a few items. I'd like a sole source, principle source supplier.

Hope someone takes notice and thinks that is a great idea.

Aesthetics are probably the main motivation for most people to play miniatures games, as opposed to board, map-and-counter, or computer games. That being said, the game is a dynamic, organic, process, not a pristine and static diorama. So you have to keep track of things somehow.

I'm usually playing and running 25mm science fiction games. I don't object to a few counters. They are much easier to use than notes on a sheet. E.g., my missile team has two missile counters, so I know it had two missiles left – and its activation counter is right-side-up, so I know it hasn't gone yet this turn.

I've bought a few of the cool playing aids to which the Yellow Admiral (in charge of the Navy of the King in Yellow, perhaps?) alludes. A couple of plastic missile things look OK next to the missile team.

Regarding dice, I like games where both sides have to roll, because it keeps everyone involved all the time. I make sure that we have dice boxes of some kind to keep the dice off the table, where they can be as deadly as giant cannonballs. (My wife gave me a Lego Star Wars storage case shaped like the Millenium Falcon some years ago, that immediately became my main convention game dice box.)

I don't mind if there are a lot of different kinds of dice, because it makes it harder to calculate odds in real time, and real unit leaders don't calculate mathematical odds in a firefight. Rather, they base their decisions, such as allocations of weapons to direct fire attacks, on judgment, experience, training, and the defined purpose of the weapons.

So an infantry squad leader firing on an enemy infantry squad taking cover in a civilian house will have the assault rifles fire, hoping to get rounds into the windows and doors, and possibly penetrate the walls. That should suppress the enemy. The squad leader will have his SAW or other high-volume automatic weapon fire, for the same purpose. That's what those weapons are intended to do.

The squad leader may or may not decide to fire an anti-vehicle rocket at the house. It's a judgment call, and it's not based on the probability of penetrating the wall and causing casualties and suppression.

Mr. Goffin, you make a truly excellent point regarding dice and players calculating probabilities instead of "on the ground 'realities'". The probability calculators, at least within my personal experience, are yet another way to slow the game down as they hem and haw on how to maximize the mechanics rather than play in the spirit of the game. Kudos to you, sir.

Use an umpire who will keep track of morale, positions, hits, etc, as well as rolling the dice
My favorite is an umpired double blind game where not even the terrain is what it seems
So, units get lost in forest, steepe and city, there is friendly fire and results are many times ynknown
Just like the real thing

@Early morning writer: Thank you for your kind words.

@Rick Don Burnette: I agree, but the practical problems are essentially insurmountable.

Unless you have -- and are willing to assemble and paint -- three sets of identical terrain, buildings, figures, and vehicles, you are reduced to one set of the above and each side in its own room with a map and counters.

So the referee and the passersby get to enjoy the beautiful table, but not the players.

I think Stargrunt/Dirtside and Tide of Iron have hit a sweet spot for me -- one to two counters max on a unit. Epic: Armageddon might be the best of all, since, generally, the counters of consequence are the blast markers, which help with the cinematic feel of the game.

That being said, I was one of those sick individuals who actually enjoyed record-keeping, such as ticking off little bubbles in BattleTech. I know a number of games introduced counters and chits to relieve the need for record keeping, so I guess that's a matter of "pick your poison".

You miss one pont. Commecial game makers make more money if you sell the punters more junk. You could just sell folk a Black and White Pdf of cards which would be much better but you make less profit (thinks mabe we should rip off folk as well).

However on the other side many wargamers go for style over substance. They like pretty cards even if a simple cheap one would do. Rulebook are the same an excessive number of usless (to the rules) pictures. Don't judge a book by its cover does not seem to apply to many wargamers. ;-).

to me a D20 is fine. Do you really think you understand the real world to evwn that level, given lots or real world parameters are always ignored in wargames (for good reason).

I play AOE with a bunch of guys that likes to use some big plastic helicopter propeller looking things as markers. They come out of some board game.

They are round with triangles that go from the center to the ring. They come in bright blue, yellow or red. They really clutter up the game table. They are ugly.

So I thought I would do everyone a favor and I bought boxes of Litko custom AOE markers. They are wood and shaped like a crown.

They looked much better. But only one other guy liked them. No one else wanted to use them. Well, there is no accounting for taste. I thought they were great.

link

In other games like FPW and ACW games I use a prone figure to mark a unit that is prone. I am working on do something similar with other figures like a destroyed gun etc.

I don't mind markers and most games that omit them just ends up with the player tracking multiple status effects by memory.

With Laserstorm, we tried to omit all markers and tracking completely and that ended up requiring writing the game from the ground up to support that.

If you can replace markers with something more visually pleasing, that helps of course, like explosions for "Pinned" markers, that sort of thing.

A guy i knew took figures running away, surrendering, reloading etc. and painted them in a plain slate grey to use as markers, which was awesome, but it's hard to find suitable options.

It's a problem. I tried for years to get away from them but it always turned into chaos. I once had a system where you had a narrow strip across the baseline on which the flags and standards of the various units were painted and you put the markers on those rather than the units.

Complete chaotic failure. People couldn't tell the flags apart. Now I have a system that works with a minimal of disruption. I use business sized cards with the effects of the combat results on them. These are stood up between he figures of the unit. They can barely be seen from behind or in front and are the least objectionable. Also, they are noticeable, where things like pipecleaners, loops around flag, washers, casualty caps can fall off or be forgotten.

It's an unavoidable vice.

But, it's far less objectionable than the coke-cans, beer cups, nacho dishes and salsa bowls stuck on the edge.

Markers are a result of the design. If you don't track much, then rosters on a clipboard can keep the clutter off the tables -- although in our games, the charts get dropped on the table, so markers aren't that big a deal.

I do not mind markers of any sort. If it gets people playing then I'm all for it.

I have to go with UshCha on this one. I have a friend in the game publishing business and he said it's the play aids and picture books that make you the $$.

I've found miniatures players are very visual. That's why Osprey marketing people have their book full of cool color photos you can find on the internet. Even AAR's are much more visual than content driven.The only markers I have is a movement arrow for moving units and little puffs of white or black cotton for smoke. I do have a chit to ID vehicles in hull down or turret down as it's difficult to tell a lot of times with the terrain used and the scale of the models.

I'm designing vehicle cards and using icons and color. I could have a nice dull black and white printing. Color is better.

As far as dice I like 2D10 to represent 1-100 and a D20.

Wolfhag

I wish casualty rings were dark green instead of white.

I have provided small table and/or extra chairs to place charts, rules, measuring devices etc. That last about two turns. Then the edges of the table begin to be populated by charts, rules and rulers.

The need for 'clutter' is record-keeping and attempting to provide the various detail or multiple effects of battle. I think board and computer games have been an impetus for this too. Both provide more 'clutter' and do-dads [board games] and complex record-keeping made easy [computer games].

It is a tough issue.