"Tabletop Wargames – A Designers’ and Writers’ Handbook" Topic

I've just published a review of "Tabletop Wargames – A Designers' and Writers' Handbook" by Rick Priestly and John Lambshead

You can find it here

link

I hope you find it useful.

Thanks for the review Neil. Was looking forward to getting my hands on this, but will skip it now.

Good review, which confirmed my initial impression that this book had nothing to offer me, personally.

Another turkey – just in time for Xmas.

"…reality has very little influence on the game, and where the two clash, it's always the game that wins."

Well… yes. It's a game. If your objective is to accurately reproduce all aspects of a military engagement in miniature, then you have diverted from creating a set of wargaming rules, and are attempting to pen a war simulation.

Reality provides the canvas on which the game's representation of events and actions are presented. However, if you dogmatically favour reality over the game, or over playability if you like, then there is no longer a game to be played.

Many enthusiasts may believe that their favoured set of rules for some particular period or setting are highly realistic, but unless they are dealing with a setting of pure fantasy, there must be some degree of interpretation and even fudging of reality to ensure everyone goes home by at least next Thursday.

It seems that the book may take certain design assumptions as gospel, and fails to expand or explain in places, but my own experience of game design matches all the commandments that are described within. Range, for example, must be a tool by which game outcomes are achieved, not an exact scale representation of reality. If it were, we'd all need tables at least 20' across to play in 28mm, even with the catapults and ballistas of antiquity.

Shakespeare may have meant something different when he had Hamlet pronounce "the play's the thing", but I'd say it is sound advice for any game designer.

Thanks for the review. I think I will pick this up.

I have a copy and agree with a lot of what is said there but not all of it. A good review.

GBS

The author of the review seems to hold a general opinion of "didn't like".

For a slightly different perspective, it's also good to read the editorial review over on Amazon.Com.

If reality has little influence on the game then you are not playing anything I can accept as a wargame.

If you can't work out a way of keeping ranges, movement distances and such within a framework based on at least an approximate ground scale then you should probably stick to writing fantasy rules and not historical ones.

A wargame IS a war simulation. Just because it isn't an accurate or a very close simulation doesn't stop it being one.

I've read this one, and my perspective is different. No, it's not the last word on writing rules for miniature wargames, but it's a pretty good exposition of the thinking processes of a successful writer of wargame rules.

It's very hard to get beyond that. I've got three books on wargame campaigns, all written by noted wargamers with successful campaigns to their credit, but they have trouble getting beyond their own creations. Two of the three don't really try.

So this will sit on the shelves, not too far from Charles Grant explaining HIS thinking process, or Joe Morschauser describing his. Parts of it are very useful, and no one's written the miniature wargamer's Clausewitz yet.

The book is well worth the price if you are into designing games in general, particularly the discussions of terms, language and rule book organization.

Rick does do a real disservice to the wargaming hobby in the chapter on scale. A very distorted and at times bizarre effort to prove that games have little in common with reality. It is a complete hash of the issue. He spends the first 4.5 pages of the chapter to prove that the height of our figures are not to scale then states that it doesn't matter. He then gets into movement and fire, implying that there are only two ways of handling the relationship and only one works… i.e. his approach. His grasp of history seems really weak. [He even confuses pace lengths with yards] Very annoying read. I'd skip that chapter.

Even so, I am glad I bought the book.

I quite enjoyed the book personally. I think the sections on the use of English were particularly good.

And I think it needs to be borne in mind that the book approaches wargames writing from the point of view of professional publication. Of course, we all have our own opinions and preferences on rules mechanics, so inevitably it's impossible for this book to please everyone. But it's staying on my shelf, and I'll refer to it from time to time.
So thank you Rick and John!

You know, McLaddie, I wouldn't skip that chapter. Mind you,the editor ought to have beaten both authors with a rolled-up newspaper and made them re-write it once they figured out where they were going, but they were going someplace important--that formation size rather then figure scale is the critical thing--see Volley & Bayonet, which he doesn't bother to reference--that movement distance has to key on table depth and firing ranges key on movement rates.
He's also right that not every solution which works mathematically works for a wargame, and that time scales are easiest to fudge.
He's very present-oriented, always referencing this week's hot game rather than the classics. The whole thing will feel like a period piece in five or ten years. But he has some real insights.

When the cover has an error in grammar, one might wonder about the contents usefulness on how to write rules. The use of apostrophes means ownership or possession e.g. Mary's cat.

A Designers' and Writers' Handbook means A Handbook owned by Designers and Writers. If the intention was to mean A Handbook for Designers and Writers it would have been easier to just say so.

Or perhaps the purpose was to define the book as a Designers Handbook, similar to a User Manual or a Reference Manual. No apostrophes. It's just a Designers and Writers Handbook.

If an apostrophe must be used, then a designers' handbook means many designers owning just one handbook.

Reality and game play are not independent. For an activity to be enjoyable, it usually has to be meaningful. The player has to relate to the game. Using familiar concepts (reality) is one way of doing this. The player uses his existing mental model of the world rather than needing to build one from scratch.

For example, in a horse and musket game rather than expressing distances in inches, use real distances such as paces or yards. If a player knows the range is 100 yards, then he could expect musketry to be relatively ineffective. If the player only knows the range is 10 inches, then he has little knowledge of what to expect.

And looking at this in reverse, realistic rules can teach the player about the game world. This is what serious games do.

…but they were going someplace important--that formation size rather then figure scale is the critical thing--see Volley & Bayonet, which he doesn't bother to reference--that movement distance has to key on table depth and firing ranges key on movement rates.

Robert:

Okay, we are going to have to agree to disagree on skipping the chapter. Whipped with a newspaper won't do it. Whipped with an Alabama wet squirrel is more appropriate. That formation [base] size rather than the size of the figure is important is not some new insight. Featherstone and Grant four decades ago had already gone to that important place. No one debates that issue on TMP and hasn't as far as I know or have disagreed with Those two gentlemen's insights. No matter the size or number of the figures on a stand, it is simply a game counter, a marker, a representation of something else. Old news. Certainly, they could have mentioned before moving on to current issues, but to 'explain' it as though no one realizes that fact is a waste of paper.

He's also right that not every solution which works mathematically works for a wargame, and that time scales are easiest to fudge.

True, but who has ever argued against that? Again, the authors gives no rationale for their 'fudge' conclusion, but states it as a fact… which it isn't.

It is very easy to fudge anything in any scale, time, ground, movement, ranges etc. etc.. That's why designers do it so often: It's easy. Figuring out how avoid fudging is much harder. Solutions for wargames—and games in general, are very much dependent on mathematical solutions. But any solutions that work mathematically are only math solutions…it's what they do for the game that counts…but they remain math. See below at some of the 'math' provided in Rick and John's chapter.

He's very present-oriented, always referencing this week's hot game rather than the classics. The whole thing will feel like a period piece in five or ten years. But he has some real insights.

It felt like a period piece now, circa 1980. After 4.5 pages to demonstrate that our miniature sizes are not to scale, he writes:

The size of the figures placed upon those movement trays is unimportant, so is purely a matter of personal taste-- This is another of those ‘you pays your money and you makes your choice' options that is certainly is certainly convenient for the independent rules writer.

This is old, old news. The very next paragraphs are new and rather bizarre math:

Movement and weapon ranges can be boiled down to a fairly straight-forward mathematical formulae:

• Slow units move = M/2
• Standard units move = M
• Fast units move = 2M
• Distance short range weapons can fire =M
• Distance standard weapons can fire = M
• Distance standard weapons can fire =2M
• Distance exceptionally ranged weapons can fire =3M+,

Where M =T/8 and T is the width of the playing table—normally about 48".

The problem of game scale becomes a little more convoluted when we fast forward to a modern subject such as World War II…

So in pre-WWII era armies, slow units moved ¼ the distance of ‘fast units?' And all movement needs to be be 1/8 of the table width? What set of rules has ever used that ‘straight-forward formulae'—even Rick and John's rules?

Six inches for infantry is a standard, [1/8 of 48"] but none of the other parts of his formulae is followed by anyone.

It seems he is willing to develop mathematical formulas for game design that are deemed impossible for historical approaches to scale. These ‘solutions' are so narrow as to ignore most wargame rules including Volley & Bayonet which you mention.

They do mention some classic designs like Squad Leader, but misrepresent John Hill as a designer, the game and misuse some of the only quotes offered in the book. It was a distorted and misleading attempt to justify or ‘characterize' design for feel… totally unnecessary, muddying the design issues rather than clarifying anything…and really annoying for that reason.

I'll concede most of that. I'm so used to wargame articles reinventing the wheel that I barely flinch anymore when someone spends six pages of a glossy discovering modular terrain or hexes.

But I give the man points for saying that of the range of valid combinations of ground scale, time scale number of units under command and such, only certain solutions result in satisfying wargames, and trying to work out the relationship between table depths, move distances and firing ranges. Some great names in the hobby have simply assumed certain answers--sometimes not too far off Priestly's--without ever discussing the individual circumstances.

(I've been know to go through old Waargamer's Digests looking for clues to what size board and what frontage of unit the Big Name regarded as normal, because it wasn't specified in rules or scenarios.)

I don't think he has all the answers,but some of the questions are new, which is worth something.

The use of the apostrophe is correct. Designers' indicates usage by multiple users, not merely ownership.

I am now aware that the chapter on the use of English has opened something of a can of worms for some, regarding the use of gender in non-determinable descriptions. 'They' is suggested as fine, but confusing when the text must describe an action being particular to one player or the other.

This is absolutely true, but it seems that in an attempt to present a sometimes vexing issue in a light-hearted manner, the authors talk about 'Dave transmogrifying into Davina' as disturbing.

This has not gone down well with some in the transexual community, it appears.

I have no doubt that the authors had no desire to insult or embarrass any transexual gamer who may read their work, but it might not have been the best turn of phrase. It also seems that John Lambshead's social media responses to criticism on this point have been… lacking in tact.

I find that disappointing. The author's correctly point out that the greater part of the wargaming community is identifiably male, but that is no reason to not recognise that a poor choice of language has caused concern for someone who is not male, and needs only to be acknowledged and apologised for to make it right.

Given the authors dedicate a fair part of the work to the role of the correct use of language in communicating accurately, such a clarification can only help that process.

Maybe this set of rules needs an errata. :)

I found the section on ground scale vs time scale vs firing distances rather interesting.

Granted, it is nothing new for those who have read countless books on wargaming before, but it's kind of interesting to read that in the end, no matter what scales or formulas you use, you end up with a 6" movement and firing distance, because that works as a game!

You can also look at this as top-down games design: we want so many turns in a game, a unit should be able to cross the table during those turns, we need room for approach and manouevre without getting shot at so that determines firing ranges etc.

Then, if you want to link it to historical reality, determine the EFFECT of firing action during a given turn (or slice of time). Makes complete sense to me.

I always felt that bottom-up design (troops move at speed such and so, firing ranges are so and so, let's scale according to ground scale) always needs fudging in the end, because the time scale usually is too coarse to model the firing actions properly. Firing actions have distance AND time -- and there rules usually break down or need fudging.

As a recently retired schoolmaster, my experience suggests that the majority of children/teenagers in the UK are far more familiar with metric measurements than with the old Imperial ones. Indeed, many have little idea how many inches there are in a foot or feet in a yard.
I find it surprising then that modern rulebooks often use inches for movement and firing ranges. The six inch move quoted in this book goes back to Wells and Featherstone, and seems to assume 25/28 mm figures – or at least a unit base of the size such figures.
Would it not have been better to calculate moves and ranges as multiples of unit frontage, so that rules could be easily applied to games using smaller figures?
Certainly this book offers an insight into the authors' approach to wargame design – which one could surely discover by reading Black Powder or similar – but not much more than that. For that reason, as I have BP, I won't be buying it.

Thanks for the review. It saved me some money.

Granted, it is nothing new for those who have read countless books on wargaming before, but it's kind of interesting to read that in the end, no matter what scales or formulas you use, you end up with a 6" movement and firing distance, because that works as a game!

Phil:
That is what I question, that 'no matter what', particularly when so many games do not follow that formula, including Rick's Black Powder. It certainly is an old standard for a number of games as Arthur points out, but that is a designer's choice, not some absolute 'must.' Many games have basic movement from infantry ranging from 3" to 16" or more. There certainly are physical restrictions to tabletop wargames, but that isn't one of them or even a meaningful generalization.

You can also look at this as top-down games design: we want so many turns in a game, a unit should be able to cross the table during those turns, we need room for approach and manouevre without getting shot at so that determines firing ranges etc.

Then, if you want to link it to historical reality, determine the EFFECT of firing action during a given turn (or slice of time). Makes complete sense to me.

It certainly makes sense IF you have chosen those particular parameters [the number of turns in a game or the number a unit *should* take to cross a table etc.], but those are designer choices, NOT some best solution to some absolute Table or wargame limitation--which is how it is presented. Rick's solution is supposedly the ONLY reasonable solution.

I always felt that bottom-up design (troops move at speed such and so, firing ranges are so and so, let's scale according to ground scale) always needs fudging in the end, because the time scale usually is too coarse to model the firing actions properly. Firing actions have distance AND time -- and there rules usually break down or need fudging.

Which rules are those that 'break down?' Volley & Bayonet with 12 and 16 inch movements, or Black Powder with three levels of possible movement a turn--far greater than 6"? And what constitutes 'fudging'? The term seems be applied to many notions, usually to problems where the designer chooses to ignore [fudge 'cause it is easier] or simply things the designer didn't see as the main goals of the design and thus didn't worry about them--but are then called fudging.

There are a number of successful games that use ground scale and weapon ranges. I've always felt that designers who choose to ignore such things--for a variety of reasons, good and no so good--often attempt to prove that ALL designers have no choice but to ignore them because the 'problems' are unsolvable. This need for scale can only be a continuing issue when the desire on the part of gamers [and designers] is to have scales…something real world to relate to--which is what simulations are all about.

If, given a ground scale and a time/turn scale, your movement rate per turn is larger than effective firing ranges, you will have to fudge to turn that specific choice of scales into a workable game. At least, if you want to have a combat mode in the game other than close contact.

Effect of fire, given a time/turn scale, has to take into account:
- aggregated fire results over the entire time of the turn, keeping the effective firing range;
- or increase effective fire range (to have a workable game), but then reducing the effects of fire such that increased fire ranges are compensated.
- a combination of the above.

Perhaps 'fudging' is a wrong choice of words, but sticking dogmatically to ground and time scales often needs fixes.

Core of the problem is that time is discretized in turns, thus events that take less time than a turn (e.g. a single shot ;-)) doesn't work in the game. Hence, you need a fix, either by aggregating multiple shots during the turn, or by some other means (e.g. Increasing firing ranges).
In a sense, this is trivial, but I often see that players are not aware of this, and keep talking about the firing phase in terms of a single shot or volley being fired, instead of an accumulated effect.

If, given a ground scale and a time/turn scale, your movement rate per turn is larger than effective firing ranges, you will have to fudge to turn that specific choice of scales into a workable game. At least, if you want to have a combat mode in the game other than close contact.

Phil:
I absolutely agree that it is an issue. The key factor is 'given a ground scale and time/turn scale'. Because the designer has control over both those measures, ground and time scale, there are a number of approaches to the issue that just Rick's. His solution isn't wrong, but it certainly isn't the only solution.

Perhaps 'fudging' is a wrong choice of words, but sticking dogmatically to ground and time scales often needs fixes.

"Fixes"? Fixes as in game play issues or fixes as in representing history?

Core of the problem is that time is discretized in turns, thus events that take less time than a turn (e.g. a single shot ;-)) doesn't work in the game. Hence, you need a fix, either by aggregating multiple shots during the turn, or by some other means (e.g. Increasing firing ranges).

Yep, how time is handled does impact every other subsystem in a game. Aggregating shots or any other actions within a time segment is a 'fix'? It is one of the most natural things humans do: Segment time and aggregate actions within it. You and I do it every day. It isn't a 'fix' to do it in a game. It is just a matter of how it is done. It can be a trivial issue, and unfortunately players are usually woefully unaware of what is and isn't aggregated. Woefully IF the idea is to provide players with a grounded sense of what is being represented…simulated.

If, given a ground scale and a time/turn scale, your movement rate per turn is larger than effective firing ranges . . .

This is only a problem if, like Priestley and Lambshead, you stick with a dogmatic and antiquated approach to turn sequencing. I can think of several creative ways in which designers have sidestepped this issue: treating fire as a cumulative effect (as you pointed out), or as a field effect, or by using interrupted or interleaved phases within the turn sequence, to name only a few. Neither "fudge" nor "fix" is a particularly good word for something that is just a normal part of the design process.

As for what design parameters the players are aware of, and how they view them: that is a communication problem, not a design issue.

War Artisan:
Very succinct. It's only dogmatic because Rick and John state that their way is the only way. To quote a large section of the book to illustrate how they present this:

Not only is the ground-up approach unworkable in practice, it is also unrealistic. One only has to remember the old soldier's maxim of 'hurry up and wait'. Real soldiers spend a surprising amount of time on the battlefield simply waiting…

This is a really old excuse for a design issue. Most soldiers will tell you that 'hurry up and wait' was a command problem, [i.e. wait here for orders] not a movement problem… Any movement/terrain or initiative problems are already present in most all rules without then cutting movement rates.

They go on by misusing Squad Leader.

Now, one can spend hours fiddling with turn length and ground scale to achieve something workable but the compromises are so vast you have to ask whether it is worthwhile. When John Hill, the designer of the award-winning boardgame Squad Leader, was asked what the ground scale was, he is reputed to have replied, 'roll two die and a hex is that distance meters.'

Squad Leader had a published scale of 40 yards to the hex. That was John Hill's choice and that scale influenced the entire design. John's comment at a convention was sarcastic, in response to the innumerable and niggling questions generated by the fact that roads on the board were one hex wide. He simply got tired of answering the question. Obviously roads weren't 40 yards wide. He chose to represent the roads that way so troops could be caught in the road and tanks could 'visually' traverse them. It is no different than table top games having wider than scale roads. However, Rick and John make this some kind of overall design approach rather than a simple map compromise.

Squad Leader works so well because the game 'feels right', not because it conforms to some mathematical formula:

This not only makes a simple map compromise into some brilliant design method, but also distorts John Hill's approach to game design, which wasn't a wispy 'feels right'--as if there is only feels right and mathematical formula approaches. Anyone who has played Johnny Reb or his last design Fields of Glory, let alone Squad Leader would know this.

Rick and John quote Ray Winninger to support this view:

(Squad Leader) recreates World War II combat in the same way that a great caricaturist recreates a face--by exaggerating the important bits and abstracting everything else.

This sounds so clever, but actually says very little. Why?

1. Every history, every narrative, every painting, every wargame, every novel etc. etc. does the same thing: Focuses on some things, abstracts or ignores others. So, first of all, this quote doesn't say much other than what everyone does anyway, certainly not identifying some unique approach to history and wargame design.

2. To reference a 'great caricaturist' suggests that the result is a 'cartoon', which is what caricaturists create, recognizable, but manifestly unrealistic portraits. Caricatures are purposely NOT representation. John Hill, for whatever his predilections for wargame design did not see himself as designing 'cartoons.'

This misuse of analogies and quotes does nothing to explain 'feels right' as a design method. For instance, on the next pages, they write:

Weapon ranges in Bolt Action have been twisted to conform to a complicated sigmoid curve [ya mathematical!] that expands weapon ranges at the lower end and increasingly diminishes them at the upper. Some non-linear relationships of this type is commonly employed by designers of modern tabletop wargames to allow for a variety of troop types and equipment.

So it has nothing to do with scale, but simply to 'allow' for 155mm artillery and such which actually wouldn't be seen on the table. It would have been interesting to mention a few of these 'commonly' employed game designs. Yet, even though this is a strictly game design decision with NO relationship to scale or reality for that matter, it is justified with this analogy:

War artists use similar sleight of hand when it comes to scale. Take, for example, a popular theme such as two aircraft dogfighting. Both planes are shown close up so that you can see every detail of their construction and markings. To achieve this essential dramatic effect, the distance between the fighters has to be artificially shrunk. [my italics]

If John and Rick had talked to these artists or pilots, they would know that planes DID come as close to one another in combat as shown… even collided. Certainly not an average occurrence. Certainly dramatic, but hardly artificial. Such close passes did happen.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with actually representing history, by 'feel' or not. The real issue is:

The success and popularity of various rule sets covering World War II and more recent conflicts suggest that players like to field tanks, artillery and other heavy equipment regardless of scale… Game designers who don't allow for such things on the basis of scale realism are onto something of a loser so far as the public is concerned… That is why games like Bolt Action are obliged to use such a heavy, non-linear reduction of scale at the upper end of weapon ranges.

Their primary goal is to design games that sell, not games that represent history or combat. I have no problem with those design choices, twisted range scales or whatever. If it sells games, more power to them.

I do have a real problem with designers who use distorted logic and talk up wonky design methods so their wargames can be considered representational, historically meaningful 'by feel', arguing that it is the only 'practical' approach when that isn't the point at all, is it?

The whole chapter on scale is a convoluted effort to justify design choices as really 'realistic' by feel when they are actually just efforts to design games that sell and scale and realism are the first things sacrificed.

The question is why the chapter on scale at all, if scale issues aren't important to the "players who like to field tanks, artillery and other heavy equipment regardless of scale…" ???

i bought the book, helps me understand warhammer well. I think it's good and useful to me

McLaddie – could you give an example of a game you actually like?

Weasel:
I have mentioned games that I enjoy in the past. What does that have to do with the above comments???

Bill

It'd help understand where you are coming from, when we're having these discussions mate.

Weasel:

If you read over the Dec. 10th post, I don't say anything derogatory about any of the games mentioned, only the authors' analysis of scale in wargame design. For instance, I have played and enjoyed Squadleader and Black Powder. My enjoying a particular game or not doesn't change my impressions of the authors'discussion of scale. I think the confusion comes when the only views of a game or any game design process is reduced to 'I like' or 'don't like'. Game design is art and a great deal of technical know how.Rick Priestly and John Lambshead reveal both in a number of places, but the chapter on scale is a complete hash of the issues, starting with the either/or absolutes of designing 'mathematically' or by 'feel'--concluding that 'feel' is the only practical method…though it is never defined. The chapter is a hash of the issues regardless of what games you like, or whether you care about scale or not.

So, to repeat:

Their primary goal is to design games that sell, not games that represent history or combat. I have no problem with those design choices, twisted range scales or whatever. If it sells games, more power to them.

I do have a real problem with designers who use distorted logic and talk up wonky design methods so their wargames can be considered representational, historically meaningful 'by feel', arguing that it is the only 'practical' approach when that isn't the point at all, is it?

Clearer now?