Editor in Chief Bill | 17 Aug 2017 6:37 a.m. PST |
Some rulesets need to be complicated to adequately cover their subject. True or false? |
21eRegt | 17 Aug 2017 6:44 a.m. PST |
Absolutely. Otherwise we're just playing board games with miniatures. |
Dave Jackson | 17 Aug 2017 6:44 a.m. PST |
|
Whirlwind | 17 Aug 2017 6:45 a.m. PST |
|
Jozis Tin Man | 17 Aug 2017 7:12 a.m. PST |
I am going to vote no, but I was just reading Phillip Sabin's Simulating War on the cruise last week, so may be influenced by that. I think the answer is it depends on what your design objective is. |
Winston Smith | 17 Aug 2017 7:23 a.m. PST |
I do not like complicated just for the sake of being complicated. Sometimes it merely shows a lack of imagination. Mark Twain — 'I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.' |
45thdiv | 17 Aug 2017 7:25 a.m. PST |
No. You can have detail without complication in a set of rules. |
McLaddie | 17 Aug 2017 7:42 a.m. PST |
Does a study of the battle of Gettysburg have to be 150,000 words? Does a model of a P-51 have to show all the rivets? Does a wargame set of rules have to include counting ammunition expenditures? It all depends on what the designer/author wants to accomplish. "Covering their subject" all depends on what the author has chosen as his "subject". That include how much of it too. Regardless of the subject, no book, model or wargame can 'cover' everything. Choices and exclusions are always going to be made… far more left out than included. |
Joes Shop | 17 Aug 2017 7:43 a.m. PST |
|
David Manley | 17 Aug 2017 7:48 a.m. PST |
|
advocate | 17 Aug 2017 7:50 a.m. PST |
|
Zeelow | 17 Aug 2017 7:51 a.m. PST |
|
Kraken Skulls Consortium | 17 Aug 2017 7:56 a.m. PST |
The best games capture the details without needlessly complicating them. That said, I think it depends a lot on what you are trying to simulate. I don't think it is a one size fits all answer. |
martin goddard | 17 Aug 2017 8:11 a.m. PST |
Elegance trumps complexity? |
Silurian | 17 Aug 2017 8:18 a.m. PST |
There is probably no -need- for any to be complicated, and for the most part I don't enjoy getting too bogged own in details. Sometimes, just for fun though, I get a perverse joy out of one of those rule sets where you have to sift through a mass of tables and charts. Where a two second real-time action takes fifteen minutes. And the shot misses… |
Blutarski | 17 Aug 2017 8:37 a.m. PST |
Sometimes – but only for a VERY important goal. Spending twenty minutes calculating the number of napkins in the ship's galley to determine the degree of fire risk, for example, does not justify the effort. Of course, every wargamer has a different idea of what may or may not be a justifiable reason. B |
Sgt Slag | 17 Aug 2017 8:47 a.m. PST |
Played a historical navy game, years ago. One player bad to use trigonometry to calculate his 7% chance to hit with his 'fish'… He missed after spending 10 minutes calculating his very small chance. My vote is to keep the game moving! Boil the math down, distill it into a chart, or a table, but don't make me spend 10 minutes of game time to calculate s 7% chance of success! I play "games", not "simulations". I do not work for the military, nor do I work for a 'think tank', working for the government… Cheers! |
Doug MSC | 17 Aug 2017 9:11 a.m. PST |
I like a simple rule system with the flavor of the period I'm gaming in. |
aegiscg47 | 17 Aug 2017 9:17 a.m. PST |
Yes, with the poster child being modern naval warfare. Harpoon 4 does a fantastic job of this, but it is complex and takes a lot of effort. Other rules I've either tried or seen have been laughably not even close in portraying modern naval operations. |
Stephen Thomas | 17 Aug 2017 9:18 a.m. PST |
Having written my own rules for the last 45+ yrs (yes, I am that old), I would say that rules, because of the time period that they cover become more complicated as time nears the present and future. My ancient rules are 23 pgs., my Napoleonic rules are 30 pgs., my WWII are 40 pgs and my Sci-Fi are 77 pages. The closer you get to modern warfare, the more complicated warfare itself becomes – going from bows and javelins, to muskets and cannon, to AFV's and planes, to orbital bombardments, anti-gravity, exotic weaponry, etc. |
robert piepenbrink | 17 Aug 2017 9:23 a.m. PST |
"Complicated" is almost impossible to define except relatively. But I'd say certain periods and levels of warfare are more complicated than others in a way which requires longer rules and sometimes mechanisms with more steps. I find that writing or condensing tactical Napoleonics rules consistently takes me twice the length of ACW or SYW done at the same level, for instance. Might be worth noting that sometimes the complexity of rules is part of the appeal, regardless of the complexity or otherwise of the tactics. A friend argues that young minds need complex rules the way young bones and muscles need to run and jump, and he may be right. And sometimes we need to show how smart we are, and how serious the game we play is. |
Dentatus | 17 Aug 2017 9:54 a.m. PST |
No. While some periods/genres have more layers or factors to combat in a given battlespace, I submit it's the game designer's job to incorporate those elements when creating the game rules and mechanisms. The game rules can be larger, longer to accommodate but it does't have to be byzantine. Elegance is being be simple without being simplistic. |
Whirlwind | 17 Aug 2017 10:08 a.m. PST |
Yes, with the poster child being modern naval warfare. Harpoon 4 does a fantastic job of this, but it is complex and takes a lot of effort. Other rules I've either tried or seen have been laughably not even close in portraying modern naval operations. Not being a modern naval wargamer myself, could you explain why modern naval wargames have to be complicated? |
etotheipi | 17 Aug 2017 10:19 a.m. PST |
Dictionary.com has two definitions of complicated: 1. composed of elaborately interconnected parts; complex: complicated apparatus for measuring brain functions.2. difficult to analyze, understand, explain, etc.: a complicated problem. For definition (1), yes a wargame may need to be composed of an elaborately set of interconnected parts. For definition (2), no. An elaborately set of interconnected parts should not be difficult to explain or understand if you are familiar with the thing being represented. A set of wargame rules should "make sense" in terms of the desired military dynamics. Might a wargame seem complicated to someone unfamiliar with the subject and not so to those who are? Absolutely! |
aegiscg47 | 17 Aug 2017 10:53 a.m. PST |
"Not being a modern naval wargamer myself, could you explain why modern naval wargames have to be complicated?" Most of it has to do with the vast array of sensors, targeting systems, and weapons available to ships, plus the incredible speeds at which attacks occur. Just taking anti-ship missile combat for example, you could just (as some systems do) roll a D10 for the ship to detect the incoming missile, roll 1D10 for the anti-ship missile defenses, then 1D10 to see if the missile hits. With Harpoon, however, you will need to roll for a variety of sensors to see when they detect the missile. Not for just one turn, but every turn the missile enters the range of the sensors. Then, depending upon when and where it was detected, you need to move the ship to unmask weapons systems to engage it. Again, depending upon when it was detected, you may get multiple chances to engage the incoming missile with missiles, CIWS, or defensive countermeasures. It's a lot of work and can take some time. For some people it's more of a learning exercise about modern combat and they enjoy that aspect of it. Others may prefer rolling one or two dice to simulate the same thing. |
Extra Crispy | 17 Aug 2017 11:04 a.m. PST |
|
GildasFacit | 17 Aug 2017 11:06 a.m. PST |
Complicated means having a lot of interconnected parts so at what number of 'interconnecting parts' do you draw the line ? 'Complicated' rules doesn't mean a high level of detail or many, many pages or dozens of charts or even difficult to learn (though they may be any or all of those). The inference drawn is that lots of parts make the rules slow and difficult to use BUT the limit at which that occurs varies both with person and period. The question is much more subjective than some would have you believe. |
Whirlwind | 17 Aug 2017 11:07 a.m. PST |
Okay, I get that (I even played Harpoon myself on the computer many many moons ago). But rolling one or two dice to simulate the same thing isn't less realistic (if you are playing the role of a naval commander rather than the ship's captain); from the game design POV surely you just have to do the hard maths beforehand to determine what likelihood the possible outcomes? Rolling for every individual system involved is more like a second-by-second analysis of the combat than the experience of the fleet commander in action, perhaps? |
Yellow Admiral | 17 Aug 2017 11:24 a.m. PST |
Yes – but "complicated" is a highly subjective evaluation. When I was 12 I thought PanzerBlitz was complicated, now I think it's a beer & pretzels game. - Ix |
Wolfhag | 17 Aug 2017 11:36 a.m. PST |
I'd have to define "complicated" in a set of war game rules as multiple (too many) die roll modifiers to access, too many charts, IF-THEN-ELSE exceptions and arbitrary activation methods that involve mechanics that have nothing to do with military science or history. Special rules and exceptions for opportunity fire and over watch can bog down a game but you really need them. I think I have a good idea of what a complicated game is as I've designed a few of them myself. Of course, abstraction can uncomplicate a game but it can also abstract it to the point that it loses the feeling that the designer and players are looking to experience. Starting with a simple game and then attempting to add additional detail is normally a recipe for failure. I know as I've failed in my attempts. I plead guilty to being somewhat of a gunnery nut. Any game that uses a D6 to hit on X+ does not translate into the experience I'm looking for. It does not allow the risk-reward decisions the real life counterparts were confronted with or reflect the issues surrounding accuracy. I'm weird like that and don't care. My observation is that the gaming community can be broken down into two broad categories (this is NOT an absolute statement): 1: Model makers that want a simple and uncomplicated set of rules to easily push their treasures around the table and take pretty pictures to share with others. The detail in the game could be having the correct color shading of piping on the uniform of a particular regiment. 2: Gamers that are intensely interested in a specific historical period that is willing to trade some or a lot of playability to represent the nuances and detail of the participants of that particular period. They want to attempt to solve the same problems using the tactics the real life combatants were confronted with. Detail for them could be the gunnery and armor nuances and weaknesses of particular vehicles, crew expertize differences, etc. Some people are a combination of 1 and 2. Neither one is superior to the other. I fall into #2. The approach for my latest project was to develop the most detailed model ignoring playability and complication. After I crammed all of the detail I thought was important I started trimming it down. When play testing I gave a 5-10 minute explanation and sample move and jumped into the game – there were no rules to read. By carefully observing how quickly players picked up the game play I saw what they had difficulties with and tossed the rule or modified it. I tried to get the game to flow to what their expectations were (not mine) and how their mind was approaching the problem solving, turn sequence and application of tactics. I want the game to make sense to them. Balancing the level of detail by meeting the player's expectations in an intuitive way should make a game uncomplicated while giving a fairly high level of detail. We'll see. I've gotten my tank-tank rule set down to 5 pages in number 12 font with illustrations and examples plus 1 page for optional rules, 1-page QRS and 1 page of designer notes. It delivers the same overall experience, decision making, tactics and challenge as the more detailed version, even for me. The design is scalable to increase detail in certain areas and add infantry, artillery and air rules using the same game concepts. Each vehicle uses a customized 4x6 inch index size data card that has all of the gunnery, armor configuration and is modified for that particular vehicle. This eliminates the need for additional charts, base numbers and modifiers. The design changes have basically been driven by the players, not me. Wolfhag |
aegiscg47 | 17 Aug 2017 11:47 a.m. PST |
"But rolling one or two dice to simulate the same thing isn't less realistic" I think that is true for some games, but not so for others. An example would be boardgames like USN Deluxe and Empire of the Sun. One simulates the Pacific War in one week increments and the other in seasonal (3 month) turns. Both may have a climactic battle near Guadacanal where each side loses 20% of its force. In Empire of the Sun it's done with the play of a card or two, then rolling a few D10s which takes about five minutes. With USN Deluxe it would take multiple turns, handfuls of die rolls, and several hours. Some people like that and some don't, but there's going to be a good chance that the results are going to be similar. I've seen several games on modern naval combat in the South China Sea where a Chinese SAG (surface action group) has just slightly lower odds of sinking a US SAG by each side rolling 1D6. In Harpoon, the Chinese SAG would have little to no chance of doing that kind of damage and there's a high probability that they get destroyed without ever really engaging their enemy. The reason is that you would need to account for the sensors and weapons systems that would be deployed in that kind of conflict, which gives the US side a massive advantage. Harpoon shows that, but there is a lot of effort and the fun level can definitely be questioned. You just need to find something that works for you and your gaming group. |
Great War Ace | 17 Aug 2017 12:14 p.m. PST |
False. Complication is lazy design. There is always a simpler way to arrive at the desired conclusion. That being said, there is something to aesthetics woven into the rules. And that "atmosphere" is created by extra verbiage beyond that absolutely necessary to define a rule. You can add in extra steps in order to arrive at the proper "feel" for the game. This, of course, is entirely subjective and nothing about this approach will be a "one size fits all". Gamers are as variable in what we like as we are in backgrounds. |
Yellow Admiral | 17 Aug 2017 2:27 p.m. PST |
False. Complication is lazy design. There is always a simpler way to arrive at the desired conclusion. I agree with that sentiment as a general guideline, but I think the conclusion is overreaching. Complication is *often* lazy design, but not always. I find there are often more elegant ways to arrive at a desired conclusion, but elegant minimalism in combining operations isn't necessarily simpler. Sometimes adding operations is the more elegant solution. I often prefer that the usual hit-damage-save trio of rolls is combined into a single die roll, but the three-roll mechanic has sometimes been a very elegant way to represent the feel of many subtle variations between a large number of weapon types interacting with a large number of target classifications (e.g., ironclad-era naval combat). More to the point: rules usually seem less complicated after some practice, and simpler still after a lot of practice. Rules that leverage conventional wargaming mechanics are often considered "simpler" when compared to a newer mechanics that nobody is familiar with, even when the new system is actually simpler. I don't think it's as important to find "simple & fast" rules that new players can learn quickly as it is to get a regular group to play the same rules as often as possible so the operations are familiar and automatic. Learning games are always slow, but even the most miserably complex games can move quickly with enough practice. Even better, players familiar with the rules contemplate tactics, which is what wargamers really want to do; players unfamiliar with the rules contemplate mechanics, because you can't figure out what to do until you know how it is done. - Ix |
basileus66 | 17 Aug 2017 2:44 p.m. PST |
I like for my rulesets to allow me to "tell" a story. What I really enjoy in a game is the re-telling. To remember what happened as a narrative. If the rules are so lost on minutiae that my memories of the game are an endless list of numbers, tables and dice rolls, then I will remember that game as a failure. If, on the other hand, the minutiae is what allows me to tell a story, then I will consider them a success. And complication is not synonimous with realism either. See about Harpoon 4. In that game you are a lone man representing a whole crew, formed by different specialists whose task in real life is provide accurate and opportune information to their commander, in order for him to be able to take the best possible decission given the information available. Harpoon 4 pretends that the player is the skipper, the exec, the sonar officer, radar officer, weapons officer, ecc… how is that realistic? And what about those air games in which you need 10 minutes to calculate the results of a maneuver that supposedly took 20 seconds? I follow a simple rule of thumb: a ruleset is unnecesarily complicated when the time used in finishing a turn is longer by a magnitude of 3 -arbitrarily decided by me, by the way- than the time the game turn supposedly represents. |
Wolfhag | 17 Aug 2017 3:38 p.m. PST |
Yellow Admiral, I'm on the same page as you. I'm not a real fan of Bolt Action but the way the game is designed around two D6's is pretty elegant. Why? The overall effects and players can wrap their head around values – at least I can. While the game mechanics have almost no historical relationship it is playable and entertaining and thus the large following. It also uses traditional game mechanics. My games use mostly non-traditional mechanics and real military nomenclature and terms which seem complicated at first and can intimidate new players. Videos work best to explain. However, prior military service players are up to speed in no time. With small arms fire, some rules want to factor in all of the offensive and defensive variables into one die roll for the shooter. Personally, I like factoring the offensive ones to determine a hit and then the defending player can perform what could be called a cover save rather than sitting idle while his unit gets chopped down. I'm working on the assumption that an upright man sized static target has 6 square feet of targeted area. The save roll is 1+ greater than the target size. So a 6-foot static target in the open gets no cover save. A 5 square foot target (some cover and concealment) saves on a 6. A target of 4 square feet (more cover and concealment) saves on a 5-6, etc. A unit in a bunker loophole would be 1 square foot targeted area and save on a 5-6. This gives fewer modifiers for the shooter to consider making shooting quicker. In addition moving targets get an "evade" save if moving and not firing. Still a WIP but it's something players can understand and is entertaining for the defender. Players really enjoy it so I'll keep it. Some "purists" have told me it's not realistic, oh well. In vehicle combat moving and non-firing targets can perform a "jink save" when hit. This allows the targeted player a chance to save his own unit. It's a lot more entertaining than just another to hit die roll modifier. Wolfhag |
Whirlwind | 17 Aug 2017 6:16 p.m. PST |
I've seen several games on modern naval combat in the South China Sea where a Chinese SAG (surface action group) has just slightly lower odds of sinking a US SAG by each side rolling 1D6. In Harpoon, the Chinese SAG would have little to no chance of doing that kind of damage and there's a high probability that they get destroyed without ever really engaging their enemy. The reason is that you would need to account for the sensors and weapons systems that would be deployed in that kind of conflict, which gives the US side a massive advantage. Harpoon shows that, but there is a lot of effort and the fun level can definitely be questioned. It is an interesting point. To me, that just sounds like one game has got the odds wrong, rather than a requirement to go through every subsystem. Former poster here John D Salt used to make the point that there is a lot of interest in making computer-moderated rules, but he considered this a chimera, since it involved making the computer "aware" in some senses of what was going on on the table; but where the value of the computer lay was in the game designer running simulations on Pythons or similar in the design stage, to make sure the odds worked as intended but without the players having to go through the process in-game. |
robert piepenbrink | 17 Aug 2017 6:50 p.m. PST |
The naval thing--and here I'm well out of my area of expertise: does Harpoon get into the level of complexity described because the commander makes a lot of consequential decisions or because lots of things are happening, even though most of them are pretty much automatic? It's not like the Skipper is going to turn off the sensors or disconnect the anti-missile array, but he can change the speed and heading. I work on the belief that the commander's tactical decisions should be the wargamer's options--and if he has a lot of options, you may have some complications. But effects needn't be layered. Sensors, anti-missile defenses, crew training and stealth characteristics of an incoming missile might ALL boil down to a single chart and die roll if happens faster than the commander can give fresh orders. In the same way a set of horse and musket rules can work through every reason a square might break when charged--or, after considering the relevant factors, simply say "roll two dice: square breaks on a 11 or 12." Rolling for each reason something might or might not happen is more complex, but it isn't necessarily more realistic. Doesn't mean I'm right. But I think I'm defensible. |
Frank Wang | 17 Aug 2017 7:26 p.m. PST |
as you said, "some" I think a well designed game should not be too complicated. Games which we think complicated contains too many details, and i don't think i can play with it. I'm not a pc, i can't remember and calculate too much during the play. Otherwise why don't i go to play total war? |
UshCha | 18 Aug 2017 2:10 a.m. PST |
A tree shape looks complicated but the rules that govern its shape are simple. The "rules" that drive warfare are like that. Simple rules interacting can form the shape, the rules are simple but the result appears complicated. Fractal pattersn are anothe exanple. Complicated and plausibe (I dislike realistic) are in reality mutually exclusive. Complicated rules implies the best solution has not been found. |
Liliburlero | 18 Aug 2017 8:51 a.m. PST |
A +1 to what 45thdiv said, "No. You can have detail without complication in a set of rules." Dad always said TSATF wasn't a simple set of rules but a concise set. There's a difference……. |
Yellow Admiral | 18 Aug 2017 9:25 a.m. PST |
Harpoon 4 pretends that the player is the skipper, the exec, the sonar officer, radar officer, weapons officer, ecc… how is that realistic? It's probably more accurate to think of the Harpoon player as "the simulator". The player performs all the operations of the game, and makes decisions divided among a whole crew. The player may want to identify with the skipper, but that's not the only role of the player in the game context. FWIW, I think Frank Wang has hit the nail on the head: this kind of game has been replaced by affordable computer programs – both immersive simulations and computer-assisted miniatures games.The "player as computer" is really a design conceit of many wargames, and a necessary concession built into all board and miniatures games at least a little bit. Even games carefully designed to give you the greatest feel of a commander's aerie require you to perform mechanical operations that would be outside the commander's decision cycle, because the miniatures don't move themselves and the dice have to be rolled. Ironically, I think the most I ever felt like a real commanding officer was during an Ogre Miniatures game, a completely non-historical fiction. It was a big multi-player game, and I gave away all the front-line commands to newer players and took on the role of C-in-C for my side. I spent all my time giving orders, coordinating troop movements, feeding in reserves, keeping an eye on the overall grand tactical situation and issuing commands and suggestions to adjust to it. - Ix |
Andy ONeill | 18 Aug 2017 9:44 a.m. PST |
Maybe they need to be complicated internally. That doesn't mean the interaction with the system needs to be complicated. |
Yellow Admiral | 18 Aug 2017 9:45 a.m. PST |
Dad always said TSATF wasn't a simple set of rules but a concise set. There's a difference……. That's a beautiful way of putting it. I'm totally going to plagiarize that. - Ix |
Blutarski | 18 Aug 2017 10:14 a.m. PST |
Blutarski's simple rules of thumb – Game mechanics can be considered good if: (A) 90 pct of the game can be conducted without reaching for the rule book or a combat result chart; (B) the players display involvement and excitement during the course of play; (C) the post-game wash-up chatter focuses on tactics, command decisions and decisive moments. I'm too lazy to track down the poster who commented that he wanted his rules to be able to "tell a story". +1000 to him. A smart man IMO. B |
robert piepenbrink | 18 Aug 2017 3:44 p.m. PST |
Blutarski's right. Always informative to hang around a game shop or a convention listening to players discuss a game or a set of rules. Do they talk about points values, game mechanics or tactics? This helps you sort through lots of rules without ever breaking the shrinkwrap. |
Wolfhag | 18 Aug 2017 5:32 p.m. PST |
Wolfhag's simple rule of thumb: In 1:1 vehicle games if the timing for opportunity fire can be recreated without any special rules, exceptions or abstractions on movement and rate of fire then everything else should be fairly simple and fall into place without much effort. Wolfhag |
McLaddie | 18 Aug 2017 6:38 p.m. PST |
Game mechanics can be considered good if: (A) 90 pct of the game can be conducted without reaching for the rule book or a combat result chart; (B) the players display involvement and excitement during the course of play; (C) the post-game wash-up chatter focuses on tactics, command decisions and decisive moments. Blutarski: Those are great criteria. The question is how long it takes players to get to (A), how (B) is determined and (C) whether the players are actually referencing the game-provided story, or just making up the lack with active imaginations. I have seen players take many games to reach that 90% level [me included], but they are motivated to do the work, others reach that point because the game is that simple or conventional. I have seen players *display* involvement and excitement during the course of play by rapt--and nearly silent--attention and others very vocal about events… and there are times when neither set of behaviors has anything to do with the engagement we all want. It is a tough one to judge at times. I have presented keynotes and workshops to over half a million people in my career and I still don't always read the audience. I remember one event where I thought I was getting the stare of incomprehension and death from the audience only to receive one of the highest evaluations of my career. Hard to judge a group at times. And having listening to post-game chatter, I certainly have heard what Blutarski describes, yet I have also heard the very same kind of post-game chatter about tactics, command-decisions and decisive moments that had nothing to do with either the actual game play or rules. It was sort of an overlay of imagination in place of the actual 'story line' of the game. Which is to say, A, B & C are very important, but not always easy to see or interpret. Not so important to the gamer as long as he enjoys himself, but critical to a game designer attempting to produce A, B, and C. |
McLaddie | 18 Aug 2017 6:48 p.m. PST |
Rules are 'complicated' for a number of reasons, singly or together. Sometimes it is little things that combine to create a 'critical mass' of complications. 1. Poorly written and organized. 2. Too many unimportant decisions 3. Too many unimportant administrative activities including Die Rolls. 4. Simply too many details or rules This is why games that are simple [few rules and pages of rules] are attractive. However, games are about 'interesting decisions' to quote Sid Meiers. A simple game, one which reduces the game to a few procedures also reduces the number of decisions. Elegant games often take simple rules and make them so interactive that complexity is created without lots of rules [Chess being a classic example] You want something that is easy to learn and challenging to master. IF the game is also supposed to mimic or simulate an actual battlefield environment with similar challenges and decisions for the players, that game design effort becomes that much more complicated. Elegance becomes that much more difficult to achieve. That is why often the game gets priority in design and history is left to 'feelings'… because the challenge is that tough. Elegance would be an interesting game description to define and establish as something observable in wargame design. |
Blutarski | 19 Aug 2017 6:12 a.m. PST |
McLaddie's lexicon of poor game design etiquette - 1. Poorly written and organized. 2. Too many unimportant decisions 3. Too many unimportant administrative activities including Die Rolls. 4. Simply too many details or rules - – - Fair comments all, McLaddie. Items 2, 3 and 4 are frequently symptoms of "Chrome Disease" – a debilitating (but curable) compulsion to insert vast arrays of special case rules and modifiers because they can easily be fit within the basic structure of the game mechanics. One point worth consideration: complication, however undesirable in principle, may not always be a design defect. Sometimes it is a price to be paid in order to represent some feature perceived to be important to the historical period or the level of scale being modeled. This most often manifests at the further reaches of the simulation end of the game design spectrum. Harpoon is probably a good example of this phenomenon. Some gamers will accept a higher degree of complication in exchange for the opportunity to experience a heightened degree of immersion. One other thought that comes to mind this Saturday morning is how difficult it can be to write simple rules to cover a complicated subject. It took me ten years to devise simple rules for sailing ship collisions. My first effort looked like it had been cribbed from a physics textbook; I keep it around as a reminder of how humiliatingly challenging it can sometimes be to write a set of wargame rules. By the way, +1 on your comments re chess and the virtue of "elegance" as an aspiration in wargame design. B |
Wolfhag | 19 Aug 2017 8:15 a.m. PST |
One way I've tried to avoid "Chrome Disease" and "Feature Creep" is to have small data cards that are modified for that particular vehicle and model. It eliminates many of the mechanical problems in looking up base numbers and modifiers and remembering rule exceptions. I've observed some games that immerse the player in mechanics that involves multiple die rolling for initiative, activations, and reactions that seem time-consuming to me but many players seem to really get into it. However, personally, I feel I'm playing artificial game mechanics and not getting the feeling of command. Ideally, the game sequence and timing should eliminate the need for many of the special rules and exceptions you see in games using initiative determination, reactions, and opportunity fire rules. Wolfhag |