"Amending the Rules" Topic

How many games* should you have under your belt before you even think of tinkering with a ruleset?

* games played with that ruleset

As many or as few as you like.

If you want to add or take away a rule, if everyone is cool with it, not that big a deal.

Zero.

Often, when reading a ruleset, you already can see the parts that will not work in practice during an actual game.

A few. If I see things just with a read-through that I don't think will work then I'll probably not want to play them.

Yea, zero+ for me.

Another vote for zero. Most rules have bits that obviously won't work or fit the way I want to play or don't fit the period. As with the others above, I can see those at a good read-through, no need to play it out.

Having said that, however, I have got it wrong (I'd argue for all the right reasons) at times. A counter-intuitive feature of one set of rules turned out to be there to balance play; a bodge that worked but felt very wrong.

I like rules where the author is honest and up-front on bodges like that and doesn't just claim that these are the best things since sliced bread – with no justification or explanation.

What Phil said.

With Phil. Normally, I'd say "try it a few times" but I remember an old ECW set, where, to calculate fire effects, I was multiplying and dividing by the same number in order to avoid a one-line special condition. There have been others.

I would need to play a few before I would feel like I knew better, but I have never learned rules quickly. Otherwise, well its not like a person is editing the Bible (or other equally important religious book).

None, as in never amend them. It makes playing with new players a pain.

Whatever you like BUT I highly suggest playing "as written" once or twice first.

Sometimes there's something that won't be immediately evident without playing it.

As a writer, I try to include options for players to add or change in my games, which I think helps get people in the mindset that it's okay to tinker.

Of course the writer would say that ;)

I actually agree with Weasel. While most wargamers seem to have a sense of superior intellect I think SOME rules writers are smarter than we give them credit for. It can help a lot though to see into the mind of the writer and to understand his intent. This is possible with well written discussions in the designers notes or in the text of the rules. Seeing how a particular mechanic has an effect where I might not have thought is certainly worth trying out for the sheer joy of discovery. If I thought I knew everything, then I'd just play my own set of rules -which of course I have never written. So to answer the OP, I do what I want, but if I do that the first time out,then that probably means I'm not really interested in the rules per se.

Perennials are the way to go in gardening these days and whirligigs are better than garden gnomes or pink flamingoes as decorations. I have amended the rules of this discussion!

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

I'm also with Phil, and I'll add that sometimes there are rules mechanisms that may work fine but I wouldn't *want* to play with (e.g. my personal prejudice against writing "orders"). I don't know about anyone else here, but I also occasionally go shopping for rules deliberately so that I can use specific mechanisms I would like to try out, without writing a whole set of rules around them.

All that said, I do find some rules are more tightly integrated or better sorted than others and deserve test games and familiarity before modifying.

- Ix

Often, when reading a ruleset, you already can see the parts that will not work in practice during an actual game.

Ah, but I would bet that Phil Dutre (+others), based on my experience with his posts, reads thoroughly (and often re-read bits on the first go through) and has pregnant pauses for gedankenkriegspielen, aided by a history of having already played many mechanics in a ruleset before the first draft of it was written.

I believe there is an underlying concept in the OP question about the necessity to actually understand the mechanic to a reasonable degree before tinkering. Actually playing a game is not the only way to gain understanding, though it is a common one. And for many with a lot of experience, they may have played the game without ever seeing the ruleset.

If you were faced with a novel (to you) dynamic, I think you would want to try it out vice rely only on past experience and thought experiments.

That said, I couldn't put a number on games. It would depend on the complexity of the rules, and my familiarity with the mechanics.

I would say you should read the rules several times (though, again, you may have already read the rules, not the specific ruleset, many times over the past couple of decades) and be comfortable enough with about 80% of the performance space you expect to see in a game to referee for newbies.

So … three. Three games.

I play them a number of times sufficient to eliminate
results due to aberrations in dice luck, etc. and that
of course depends upon the rules themselves.

Long ago, I felt that a 10-game playtest should be
given any rules or changes to rules, but not any longer.

Retro – well sure! :-)

As long as everyone is in agreement, when you like. There's no such thing as the wargames police.

I have been playing wargames for about 50 years now. Often I see obvious errors or things that I find unacceptable in rules from the outset. They can be changed immediately. Some errors only appear after play testing. However I don't do so much rule reading now. My set is almost perfect for me so the need to find better is less important. I still look for real in inovation but that is rare.

Often I see obvious errors or things that I find unacceptable in rules from the outset.

I think the only "maybe" to this question is that many, and I do mean many, rules and game mechanics are mysteries as far as what they DO represent, so when you decide to change them, are you changing them for the right reasons?--because you feel they don't represent something well. We often don't know what that *something* is.

F&F: The infamous "Command Radius" that had no penalty for being out of command. Many thought that it was unrealistic and changed the rules, only to find out that the rule represented the leader influence OUTSIDE of the command system… so folks were changing the rules for the wrong reasons.

We do it far more than we know because the specifics of what rules represent aren't known. We just think we know.

Regimental F&F has quick march distances which not only represent less than half the distance that a unit could cross with quick march. WHY that is, I don't know. It could be grounded in historical accounts or it could be simply for better game play and have nothing to do with history per se.

Yet we change it because it is 'unrealistic' in ignorance or simply screw up game play because of the change.

A well-designed game is a whole system. You can pull out a gear and the whole thing goes wonky… but would you know it? Maybe, maybe not, hence my qualification: Maybe.

0-1. No problem here with making "alterations"!

… and has pregnant pauses for gedankenkriegspielen

That's a new subgenre of wargaming defined right there!

But yes, having a lot of experience with various rulesets, and having a healthy interest in games design makes you see patterns much better and have an immediate grip on what works and whatnot.

It might have to do with my profession. As a computer scientist researching algorithms, one reads an algorithm to judge its correctness, simplicity, efficiency … one does not have to test it ;-) I

Sometimes there's something that won't be immediately evident without playing it.

Very true, but then rules writers should provide designer notes to explain why they made certain decisions and what a specific mechanic is supposed to represent or abstract.

Many rulesets simply lack that sort of information, hence people put an additional layer of interpretation, and starting hacking the ruleset right away.

But in some rulesets, you immedeately do see that a rule mechanic is just too clumsy and should be replaced by something else.
Or, you immediately start to think about whether a ruleset does work with your figure collection (so many figures in so many units …) and table size, and change things accordingly.

As a computer scientist researching algorithms, one reads an algorithm to judge its correctness, simplicity, efficiency … one does not have to test it ;-) I

As a computer scientist who (until January) had to test systems for operators, yeah, for a simple algorithm but not for an distributed asymmetric (highly) recursive algorithm, or even for a lot of simple algorithms in their operational context. Over a decade of looking at and tons of peer review of OpenSSL TLS Heartbeat did not find Heartbleed.

Likewise, a rule in abstraction takes on a different character in application. Something that seems clunky as a written rule may be elegant and simple in play. Or vice versa. But, yes, something "broken" at a fundamental level really can only at best be compensated for by the rest of the system. And at that, usually poorly.

So I do agree with you in general, that you can come to the type of understanding I think is necessary to make useful changes in rules without playing them. Since, in a sense, you already have played many of them. It's pretty much the same thing with your experience "looking at" algorithms. Formal proofs are important, but so is your base of experience with other similar algorithms and implementations. You know to look (and how to look) for scope or casting problems because you, I, and everyone who taught us had a broad base of previous experience with them.

This is a challenge I have with my QILS rules. I have had people who read the rules and weren't interested (somewhat) begrudgingly play a game and then ask for other scenario sets. There are a few weak parallels for the core mechanism. The supporting mechanisms are very familiar, but they necessarily interact with the core mechanism, making them seem overly simple and uninteresting if you don't consider the interactions with the core mechanism.

I do think you have to be careful that you understand the full implications of a rule change before you tweak it. If it's simple like say the real Stargrunt 2 rules where the outcome of a mêlée was very random and you tighten the distribution the impact is obvious and no change in the nominal result but just a tightening of the distribution but again not everybody may like the change. Some folk are addicted to what I would call excessive randomness. Changing hit probabilities may have unintended consequences. In my own set of rules the impact of changing probabilities up or down would change significantly the ability to model some complex situations where a lot of actions are going on at once, even if the hit rates individually are towards the low side of typical and certainly below manufactures published figures. Sometimes the designer may not be as stupid as he looks :-).

As a computer scientist researching algorithms, one reads an algorithm to judge its correctness, simplicity, efficiency … one does not have to test it ;-)

Formal proofs are important, but so is your base of experience with other similar algorithms and implementations. You know to look (and how to look) for scope or casting problems because you, I, and everyone who taught us had a broad base of previous experience with them.

Phil and Etotheipi:

Previous experience may lead you to correctly suss out how a game mechanic plays, but does that abstraction tell you what exactly it is designed to mimic of reality? No question. YOU can apply all the algorithm you wish with some hope of judging it 'correctly.'

But in a wargame, is that true of what the mechanic or *algorithm* represents?

And that 'previous experience' can get in the way. The F&F Command Radius led any number of experienced gamers to assume it meant to portray the basic command system, when it didn't. Pick a game mechanic or system and tell me how you know it is correct without knowing what it is supposed to represent and why it was designed the way it was.

Experienced wargamers spent a lot of time debating what the counter-battery losses in Grande Armee *could* represent, but after a long discussion, never came up with what the designer saw them representing.

How does one judge the "correctness, simplicity, and efficiency" of a mechanic or system when they aren't clear on what it is supposed to mimic/represent? Correctness implies the judge has something to measure by.

We can probably judge the efficiency and correctness of a four cylinder gas engine, but that doesn't necessarily tell you what kind of vehicle/equipment it was designed to power, plane, copter, generator, power washer, car, or boat. And previous experience with engines may lead you to the wrong conclusion as well as the right one.

Great works of art are never finished, just abandoned. So are rules art? Every game I play is subject to editing. One folks just get it wrong, imho, others abbreviate where I want it dense and others are too dense when I want it lighter. The best rules for me? The ones I write.

Designers notes / philosophy should be extensive and required

Designers notes / philosophy should be extensive and required

When there is anything to write about. Sometimes the only philosophy seems to be "my favorite game mechanics".

- Ix

etotheipi said:

Likewise, a rule in abstraction takes on a different character in application. Something that seems clunky as a written rule may be elegant and simple in play. Or vice versa.

Well said, and I'll add: a mechanism that you normally hate playing with may turn out to be a good one in specific design applications.

It's easy to get hung up on "I hate doing that" and fail to notice that the thing you hate doing was deliberately chosen for the design because it adds something to the game. For example: I normally dislike "saving rolls" as they tend to be an unnecessarily slow mechanical operation to represent something that could be done more efficiently with modifiers or a more interesting use of dice in the initial roll "to hit". However, I have occasionally found games where the creative or elegant use of saving rolls turns out to add to the genre-specific flavor of the game, and on a couple occasions I've even found myself extending and modifying a saving roll mechanism to contribute even greater feel of a particular effect I want to see.

- Ix