Editor in Chief Bill | 21 Apr 2017 10:05 p.m. PST |
Are you the kind of gaming nerd who is really into seeing new approaches to game design? |
Winston Smith | 21 Apr 2017 10:13 p.m. PST |
No. When someone talks about "mechanics", it means he is taking things far too seriously. Next he will be using words like "synergy". Or "nuance". |
War Artisan | 21 Apr 2017 11:04 p.m. PST |
Absolutely. Exploring creative new ways to game is a big part of the enjoyment. I'm utterly at a loss to understand how any thinking human being in a hobby so permeated with imagination can be so stodgy and unimaginative as to convince themselves that everything useful or interesting that can be achieved has already been done. |
Winston Smith | 21 Apr 2017 11:45 p.m. PST |
But it's the scenario where the creativity comes in. Frankly, I have had it with new "mechanics" They are often poorly presented or confusing. I would much rather play a game whose mechanics I understand than fight my way through a poorly organized rulebook trying to "get it right". Case in point. Where in Black Powder is "warband" explained? Certainly not in the table of attributes. I was trying to run an interesting scenario and it fell apart in "mechanics". "Useful"? No. Not when the fun has been sucked out. |
Stryderg | 21 Apr 2017 11:53 p.m. PST |
If you mean dice combinations, card design or table look ups, then … Hello, my name is Stryderg and I'm a gaming nerd. |
Herkybird | 22 Apr 2017 1:05 a.m. PST |
I always experiment with new approaches and systems in my rules, I leave Sacred Cows to our Hindu friends! |
(Phil Dutre) | 22 Apr 2017 2:10 a.m. PST |
Shameless plug: I started a new blog to discuss wargaming mechanics. The posts are longreads w quite some analysis: wargaming-mechanics.blogspot.be So yes, I like talking about game mechanics. Any wargamer who writes his own rules should know his tools. But a mechanic is only a mechanic. It only makes sense in the bigger picture of a complete gaming engine and the events that game aims to portray. Well-designed mechanics make the game more intuitive and fluent to play. |
warwell | 22 Apr 2017 2:27 a.m. PST |
I do. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't |
Ottoathome | 22 Apr 2017 3:08 a.m. PST |
I agree with Winston Smith. The less mechanics the better. "Mechanics" in wargaming is useless work- it's friction. The less you have to fiddle with mechanics the better. There's nothing new, or innovative or wonderful about mechanics. |
etotheipi | 22 Apr 2017 3:55 a.m. PST |
Yes. The point of the mechanics should be to get you into a decision space that you enjoy. "Mechanics" in wargaming is useless work- it's friction. So, you play wargames with no mechanics at all. No dice rolling. No movement of figures. No combat. No maneuver. No command. But that's thrilling. I would much rather play a game whose mechanics I understand than fight my way through a poorly organized rulebook trying to "get it right". So this is a problem with mecahnics that are either (1) poorly written, or (2) not suited to you, not with mechanics themselves. |
Jamesonsafari | 22 Apr 2017 4:04 a.m. PST |
Winston and Otto. Your problem is with bad rules writing not the mechanics themselves But Winston's point that a good scenario is critical is also valid. |
Joes Shop | 22 Apr 2017 5:11 a.m. PST |
Yes. My goal is to make the mechanics as simple as possible to generate the desired effect (s). |
TheDesertBox | 22 Apr 2017 5:18 a.m. PST |
I find the argument "I'm incapable of learning and adapting to new concepts," to be unconvincing. If wargames did't have mechanics, I probably wouldn't play them. Inventing new ones, and appreciating others' design choices is a huge draw for the hobby. |
etotheipi | 22 Apr 2017 5:20 a.m. PST |
Besides, what's not to like …
|
The G Dog | 22 Apr 2017 5:26 a.m. PST |
Do I like 'mechanics' for the sake of mechanics – No. As in 'wow – nice use of a 2d6 result table with modifiers to the die roll as opposed to the target number. If it's cleanly presented, I don't want to get hung up on how things are done. Now if the mechanics are throwing ahistorcal/atypical results on a regular basis, then yes, I care. What I like is for game play to be seamless so that I don't notice the turn structure and mechanisms of action. Instead I focus on my experience with the game. |
Dynaman8789 | 22 Apr 2017 6:21 a.m. PST |
Without being open to new mechanisms I would not be playing Block games, Card Based Games, or Fireball Forward with its nifty dice mechanism that makes "stopping at one inch beyond your range" meaningless – so I am open to new mechanics in games. |
Cosmic Reset | 22 Apr 2017 6:35 a.m. PST |
Wow, I am pretty much with Otto and OFM on this. And I apologize for this sounding so negative. I like mechanics to be few, detail to be complete. The imagination is presented on the tabletop, not in the rules mechanics, at least for most part. I find that if the imagination is contained in the rules, the rules tend to restrict the use of imagination on the tabletop. I often find the terms "innovative" or "new" used to describe rules mechanics, only to find that I had seen the new and innovative mechanism three decades ago. To be honest, truly original ideas for new rules mechanisms are extremely rare, and the longer the hobby lives, the harder it is for original ideas to be conceived. Every gamer probably goes through a growing and maturing process that involves consideration of game concepts, mechanisms, etc. As time goes on, you gain less and less from this, until the return is not worth the expense. For me, and to a large extent, game rules are sort of like tax law, there are lots of ideas, a few are probably good, or at least better than others. Too many ideas have been incorporated in the law, the laws are constantly changing, mostly vacillating to and fro, resulting in little real difference. The changes are rarely better than what preceded them, and all of them result in the tedium of reading and learning the new law. In the end, I spend a lot of time for little gain, when all I wanted was the joy of paying my taxes. |
138SquadronRAF | 22 Apr 2017 6:48 a.m. PST |
Sorry I'm one who does look for new mechanics; one of the reason the War Artisan's rules appeal so much because they got away from the Featherstone/Grant approach of "bottom up" design, largely concerned with the things a regimental officer would be interested in, to one that approaches it from a "top down" what is important to a a brigadier, divisional, or corp commander or an admiral commanding a squadron. If the solution does not involve rolling handfuls of dice, double plus good. |
Dentatus | 22 Apr 2017 6:54 a.m. PST |
"The point of the mechanics should be to get you into a decision space that you enjoy." This. Yes, I care about them – inasmuch as they smooth the game play in an efficient, appropriate way. I've encountered enough that were poorly written, or hindered the flow with unnecessary complications or gimmicky mechanisms. But if I'm honest, most of the rules sets on my shelf don't get table time because they aren't a fit with my current group. Not because they aren't functional. At this stage, we're partial to fast, simple skirmish games. That's what we 'like'. |
Extra Crispy | 22 Apr 2017 7:13 a.m. PST |
New mechanics can breathe new life in to a game, because they lead to new decision making spaces. Prime example: just played a skirmish WW2 game with a new (to me) firing mechanic. The first few turns are a bit of a mess as the gang learn how the rules work. After analyzing the first few turns I realize that shooting on the attack is useless in a city fight (which we were playing). So as the Soviets I simply assaulted in waves. Even units at half strength are good in an assault so I sen them in mercilessly. At first the GM kep t asking "you sure you want to do that" but I was winning – I had more troops and could trade 2:1. I don't think it's a very good game for WW2 (YMMV) but in the end I enjoyed the whole process of having to fine tune my tactics to the "physics" of this world, so to speak. |
daler240D | 22 Apr 2017 7:25 a.m. PST |
yes, absolutey, but not just for the sake of something new. innovation for innovation's sake does not appeal to me. But I do appreciate having different ways to think on a problem and then think about how a certain innovation detail can ripple out into how it affects the rest of the game. |
robert piepenbrink | 22 Apr 2017 7:32 a.m. PST |
If it's really a new approach I'm interested, but you can go five or ten years without there being one. (It's amazing how much "new" in wargaming is Joe Morschauser with the serial number filed off.) In fact, before some of the recent work on shifting initiative, the last recent actual new mechanisms I ran into showed up in old MWANs. But what I insist on is clarity. Pick up the rules and check: what's the turn sequence? How do you fire? What are the mechanics of a melee? What determines movement distance? Is there a command mechanism, and how does it operate? If these things are not immediately clear--easy to find and comprehensible--just put the rules back and go on. If the author can't clear this hurdle, only imagine what he's going to do with cavalry charging formed infantry or armor penetration. |
RetroBoom | 22 Apr 2017 7:45 a.m. PST |
Mechanisms. Mechanics work on cars ;) |
McKinstry | 22 Apr 2017 8:28 a.m. PST |
I'm always open to new approaches and often they simplify rather than add complexity. The skill in how the new approach is presented usually determines whether 'new' is successful or not for me. |
(Phil Dutre) | 22 Apr 2017 9:32 a.m. PST |
The best game mechanics are those that push you gently and without realizing into playing the tactics and strategy, instead of forcing you to deal with the procedures of gameplay. But, as a games designer, in order to reach that point in a set of rules, you need to understand game mechanics very well. As a player, if you don't question the mechanics, it usually means the mechanics are well designed. So, often excellent mechanics are invisible, but bad mechanics are there for all to notice. |
War Panda | 22 Apr 2017 9:38 a.m. PST |
I'd admit I'm an admirer of the clever use of game mechanics whether new or old. As a philosophy of life I'm a believer in the evolution of ideas and of man's innate desire to search for an improvement to his lot; I think we can even apply this maxim to gaming. And like many other aspects of life I believe there is a certain struggle that takes place between the co-existence and relationship between complexity and simplicity in any object. IMO it is not exactly that one MUST be greater than the other but I think it is certainly true that one should always serve the other. Complexity should always serve simplicity. And in order to find relaxation and enjoyment (in most cases concerning activities of leisure) the complexity should remain as hidden as possible.
My computer's interior complexity serves the simplicity of my own communication and acquisition of knowledge. The complexity of the automotive vehicle should make our journey experience simpler and less exhaustive (unless you've owned my first Ford.) Any experience of its hidden complexity means we're at the side of the road with the bonnet/hood up. The complexity of a sports team's defensive tactical system should enable the individual player to make simpler more decisive decisions rather than a disorganized uncoordinated and chaotic mess (sorry I'm thinking of my own football team right now) So any 'complicated mechanism' inserted into a game system should in my opinion be at the complete service of simplicity. It can be as complex as you like as long as it is hidden from its implementation on my table or more importantly far from the elephant graveyard that is my poor brain. |
Weasel | 22 Apr 2017 9:53 a.m. PST |
Oh heck yes, I buy games just to read. |
Great War Ace | 22 Apr 2017 10:52 a.m. PST |
The very first melee and missile fire combat charts I was introduced to (in the flesh, after reading Featherstone) are essentially the same mechanic I still use today. I saw no reason to switch to anything else (although I have given other mechanics a chance over the years, keeping an open mind). The mechanic works and predates its use in miniature games. I believe the approach is an Avalon Hill one. I've always preferred 2D6 for combat and even morale resolution. Why clutter up the table with "Buckets O'Dice"? I've been there and done that too: that "open mind" thing. But although collecting lots of dice is fun in itself, I quickly grew disenchanted with dice that drew my attention from the gaming table scenery, or even interfered with, knocked it over, etc. Simplicity and maintaining a nice sight to oogle throughout the game is paramount………. |
USAFpilot | 22 Apr 2017 3:30 p.m. PST |
"Do You Like Mechanics?" I'm not sure what that even means. If you mean do I like a cogent set of rules, then yes. We are not children just pushing pretty toy soldiers around relying on luck to win. Knowing the mechanics of the rules is a critical part of the game; you are trying to outsmart the other player and develop the better strategy. |
Northern Monkey | 22 Apr 2017 5:08 p.m. PST |
What a bitter and small minded world some people live in. Nothing is new, nothing is clever. Luddites. |
toofatlardies | 23 Apr 2017 1:41 a.m. PST |
Does one have to be a "gaming nerd" to be interested in games with new "mechanics"? Well, what do we mean by mechanics? Presumably we actually mean new mechanisms, new ideas and ways of doing things. If so then surely the acid test must be whether these mechanisms add or detract from a game. For example, when designing a set of modern warfare rules, a friend of mine took a set of WWII rules as the basis and then added an additional test for the effect of body armour. So, the process went, roll to hit, roll for effect (as in WWII) and then added 'roll to see if body armour reduces that effect'. It was a perfectly legitimate mechanism, but in practice it detracted from the game because of all the additional rolls. Having decided against that mechanism, he set out to change the process in the WWII rules so that the second roll, for effect, took into account the body armour. That was a new mechanism and one which enhanced the game. Two examples of new mechanisms which had very different outcomes. Naturally, when putting together a game for your wargaming friends, it is important to use your imagination to set up a scenario which is interesting and will be fun to play. But to suggest that we should avoid "mechanics" in games, seems particularly absurd. All games have mechanisms; Don Featherstone rolling a 6 to kill is a mechanism. To suggest that new mechanisms are somehow inferior or not required does seem like a very bizarre approach to any aspect of life. By all means, look at new ideas and reject them if they fail to enhance our games, but if they work and introduce fun or interesting challenges then surely we can approve of those new mechanisms? If we attempt to suppress innovation in wargaming then we must surely be condemning the hobby to a slow and painful death? |
Cerdic | 23 Apr 2017 4:36 a.m. PST |
Wise words from toofatlardies, there. Anyone who has played their games will be aware that they know what they are talking about! So do I like mechanics? Well, if they fix my car cheaply then yes. But I wouldn't want to date any of the ones I've met… |
UshCha | 23 Apr 2017 6:11 a.m. PST |
The mechanics are a necessary evil. The result should mirror the real world. If new mechanics give a better faster simulation great. Many just change the Dice roles with no overall improvement in simulation. Lots of new rolling sequences few give a better result. |
Dentatus | 23 Apr 2017 6:33 a.m. PST |
|
Visceral Impact Studios | 23 Apr 2017 9:11 a.m. PST |
It depends. If a new mechanic leads to an elegant design, then yes. If a new mechanic merely makes a game more Calvin-ball-esque and confusing, then no. Being old or new doesn't make a mechanic inherently bad or good. In favor of old mechanics, one could argue that old/conventional mechanics are well known and therefore trifled with only using great care. In favor of new mechanics, sometimes old mechanics are bad and survive only through inertia. Better to change them than keep repeating them. Perfect example: "rolling high" die roll procedures. It's accepted convention for many games to "roll high". So rolling a d6 and needing 3+ is better than needing 6+. But then looking at stat lines, having a value of 6 is worse than a 3 even though 6 is higher than 3. To make the numbers make sense, you need to reverse them so that they're from an attacker's perspective and not the defender. For example, if rolling to damage a target, a target's armor of 6+ is harder to penetrate than a 3+. But if armor is a "save roll" a 6+ is worse than a 3+. Modifiers make things even messier. Nearly every game with an X+ approach modifies the DIE ROLL and not the target number. So a -1 modifier (a bad thing for an attacker) actually increases the number needed to pass. And nobody I know modifies the die roll anyway. So, if playing 40K and needing 4+ with a -1 modifier, nobody rolls a die, looks at a roll of 4, subtracts 1, and then says "I rolled a 3, I missed". Instead, they COMPLETELY IGNORE THE RULES and say, "I need to roll 5+" and proceeds with the roll. And yet sooo many games persist in these rule-ignoring mental gymnastics. Just modify the target number instead of the die roll which is how people play anyway. Even better, roll the modified pass number or less so your stat lines and mods can make sense. High stat value is better, negative mod is bad, positive mod is good. |
Ottoathome | 23 Apr 2017 10:48 a.m. PST |
No etothepei, I have war games with all those things. You're being tiresome. My point is that these things are all to be minimized. They take time away from the game and putting in "neato and creative and state of the art mechanics" simply slows down the game. It's using twenty die rolls when one will do. We have to move the troops because they can't move themselves. So the least rules about it the better . All the rest beyond the basics is simply complication for complications sake to scam someone into buying new rules which offer nothing. This is how I designed OGABAS (Oh God! Anything but a six) mechanics were reduced to the absolute minimum. At the same time the combat results were simplified to where they actually meant something. Modifiers? There's only one. A result that reduces all your unit values by 1 an another that reduces them TO one. Consider the old Avalon Hill Combat Results table-- only more draconian. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 23 Apr 2017 11:11 a.m. PST |
Mechanics should be unobtrusive. A tank or vehicle goes or doesn't go depending on it's mechanics. In combat, the crew don't want to have to bother about them, they should concentrate on fighting. Same with game mechanics. They should be the engine that powers the game quietly and without the gamer having to think about them all the time – the time should be spent working out tactics and movement. That's one reason I like DBA – the mechanics are generally well-hidden. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 23 Apr 2017 11:30 a.m. PST |
@otto… I would differentiate between elegance and simplicity. An elegant mechanic or game represents more with less. An overly simple game that becomes simplistic can miss so much flavor that a game becomes Yahtzee and the figures, terrain, and player choice utterly superfluous. @Garrison…would have to disagree a little about DBA. It's mechanics are very much visible while their intended results are opaque. Combat resolution is a Calvin-ball combination of opposed die rolls, modifiers to both dice based on multiple conditional statements that literally read like computer code, a division calculation, and then more conditional statements at the end to determine a final result! That's a ton of varying procedures, text references, and math processes just to get to a result. |
toofatlardies | 23 Apr 2017 12:00 p.m. PST |
It's very difficult to seriously consider debating with someone who says that any new game mechanism that could be invented takes… 'time away from the game and putting in "neato and creative and state of the art mechanics" simply slows down the game.' That is an absurdly sweeping statement which clearly cannot be taken seriously. However, Otto makes his position clear when he informs us that he has created a system called OBGAS which is, apparently the ultimate in minimalism. One can only look on in wonder that all wargamers are not using it. Indeed, at Salute yesterday I can confidently say that none were. Nor were they considering doing so. Honestly, this is beyond parody. |
Dagwood | 23 Apr 2017 1:34 p.m. PST |
|
(Phil Dutre) | 23 Apr 2017 1:54 p.m. PST |
Actually, many a dictionary allow mechanic to be used for a procedure as well. |
Northern Monkey | 23 Apr 2017 2:09 p.m. PST |
Only crap ones. Oxford English Dictionary: 1. A skilled worker who repairs and maintains vehicle engines and other machinery. ‘a car mechanic' 2. Archaic. A manual labourer or artisan. ‘the Mechanics' Institute' |
War Artisan | 23 Apr 2017 5:09 p.m. PST |
It's too late to argue about the correctness of "mechanic" to describe a specific technique employed by a game designer. It's already a firmly entrenched colloquialism among gamers of all types (much like "15mm scale" for figures and terrain). Get over it. As for Otto's ridiculous statement that mechanics "take time away from the game and putting in 'neato and creative and state of the art mechanics' simply slows down the game. It's using twenty die rolls when one will do" . . . no, it's not. That's putting in too many mechanics, which is a mistake commonly made by rookie and amateur game designers . . . clearly not the same thing as using new and innovative mechanics to make a game easier to grasp and play. |
Northern Monkey | 23 Apr 2017 10:58 p.m. PST |
One man's firmly entrenched colloquialism is another man's annoyingly regular error. |
War Artisan | 23 Apr 2017 11:41 p.m. PST |
True. Though it is not entirely incorrect (Merriam-Webster includes "functional details or procedure" as part of its definition of "mechanics", which clearly would apply in this case) it still grates on the ear. All I'm saying is that it can no longer be fixed, so we can quit harping on it and move on. |
platypus01au | 23 Apr 2017 11:54 p.m. PST |
@Garrison…would have to disagree a little about DBA. It's mechanics are very much visible while their intended results are opaque. Combat resolution is a Calvin-ball combination of opposed die rolls, modifiers to both dice based on multiple conditional statements that literally read like computer code, a division calculation, and then more conditional statements at the end to determine a final result! That's a ton of varying procedures, text references, and math processes just to get to a result. Indeed. On the other hand it is a set of procedures I can usually do in my head in about one second. For me, my move from WRG 6/7th Ed to DBA/M was one that sums up my attitude to mechanisms/mechanics. I played DBA once and the light-bulb went off and I have never played a game of 6th or 7th since. Recently I played a game of Rogue Stars, which is Andrea Sfiligoi's Osprey Sci-fi set. He has changed the usual Ganesha mechanisms. When I first read the rules I wasn't convinced, but once I played them, again, the light-bulb went off. I think Andrea has produced a pretty good set of rules with quite a bit of re-playability. I can't recommend them highly enough. So yes, I'm one of those gaming nerds. One now with 7 sets or rules for Pirates! Cheers, JohnG |
UshCha | 24 Apr 2017 2:03 a.m. PST |
THe DBA/DBM Mechanic debate poses an interesting issue. DBM in particulat if optimised for a specific period does give supprisingly credible modelling of actual battles (not 100% re-runs that would be impossible). However its system is not self explanitory. It gives little in the way of how ro optimise ractics. It does generally reward realistic play. Our own rules are similar. They give a reasonable answer but do "not one jot" for helping the player to play. Playing like the real world is rewarded but it is not the role of the system to show how to play. To some players this is not an ideal mechanism as they want all the factors lined up and controled (over controled?) to eliminate/minimise strategic thinking. This may influence what others would consider to be new and innovative to be considered retrograde. A mechanic masterable in a single game is not one I would consider good. If you consider you can master modern war tactics in one game then clearly the level of simulation is (in my opinion) of no use and that game would not class as innovative but retrograde. I do genuinely look forward to another great srep forward in machanics. To me there have been few. DBA/DBM, SGII, Fire and Fury, Barkers 1925 to 1950 and of course the earlier versions of Crossfire. |
BobGrognard | 24 Apr 2017 4:31 a.m. PST |
UshCha, the games you list there as innovative all top thirty years old. May I humbly suggest that you seem to have missed out on an awful lot that has happened since then. |
UshCha | 24 Apr 2017 6:50 a.m. PST |
To be honest I have not seen any recently that I would call innovative on my terms. Many of the latest are to me really just re form a ts of Featherstone. Bolt action, team Yankee and it's ilk. Very popular, well written perhaps but not innovative. Many fail on range, ground scale issues. They may be excellent games but have major flaws like exponential ranges etc. Always happy to be corrected if I have missed one. The card sequencing was old some was done in later Featherstone but never had simulation appeal. Clearly to include our rules would be inappropriate in such an illustration. Games and simulations have at there heart differing objectives. An excelent game may be a bad simulation. |
Cerdic | 24 Apr 2017 7:18 a.m. PST |
The word is mechanism. A mechanic is someone who works on machinery. Am I sensing another case of "two countries separated by a common language" here? We might have to bring out the old "who invented the bleedin' language anyway" cannon…. |