"Fast-Playing Rules" Topic

Are rulesets today sufficiently fast-playing?

* I am satisfied with rulesets today.
* Rulesets still need to be more fast-playing.
* Rulesets need to be less fast-playing.

satisfied

Some are. Some aren't. People today: are they tall or short?

In my experience if everyone in the club knows the rules, most rules are fast playing.

If members won't even read the QRS, all rules bog down.

Some could still benefit by speeding up.

Speeding things up would be better, but I'd like that with minimal granularity reduction, where possible.

Some rules sets still don't even come with a QRS, which I find to be astounding.

I'm satisfied.

When I'm not I either rip out and replace or chuck them out and try something else until I am satisfied.

Narratio +1

I'm satisfied with the rules I use.

+1 ZULUPAUL

+1 zulupaul

Satisfied

Extremely satisfied.

IMHO most rules would play faster if the gamers using
them made decisions faster – which could be accomplished
by thinking about their next move/turn while the
opposite side was executing its turn…

+1 Extra Crispy and Ed Mohrmann.

Read the rules and keep your head in the game. If you aren't prepared to do these, why bother to play?

It varies. I am satisfied and agree with EC and EM, although I am slower in learning rules and probably slow the game down a bit.

It varies, for me. Some are fast, others are not. I wrote rules for gaming with plastic Army Men, back in 1998. I made them fast, and deadly. I aimed for a fast-playing game, not an accurate "simulation" of anything. It requires tactics, and strategy, but it moves quickly, with figures "dying" with every successful attack.

Some of the slower-moving rules sets lead to boredom for players. A lot of this is caused by their fellow players, though, exercising poor, slow, and even tedious, tactics within the game.

In other words, it is not necessarily the rules are slow, but rather the players implementing them.

One technique I've experimented with, was to limit the amount of time players had to execute their turns, or unit activations. It fell apart quickly, due to unfamiliarity with the rules, but I also believe it was the players' resistance to the time limit.

Combat is quick, and lives depend upon split-second decisions. I wanted to speed things up to help simulate this real-world experience, but the players were extremely resistant to the technique. Cheers!

Games are as fast or slow as the players and referee (if there is one) dictate. As an example, I can play a Flames of War game in an hour if both of us are knowledgeable and focused, or in four hours if they want to talk about unrelated issues, don't know the rules, etc. OTOH, much-maligned rules like Empire play quick and easy since we all know what's going on.

But to answer the direct question, I'm satisfied that I can have a serious or fluff game depending on my mood.

I am happy with the rules I play.

People today: are they tall or short?

I am the lower limit of the first standard deviation from average male height. That means that I am "average" height, but in excess of 83% of males are taller than me.

which could be accomplished by thinking about their next move/turn while the opposite side was executing its turn…

Or at least paying attention so they don't have to start their turn by figuring where everything is.

What is the definition of a fast play game?
Chess is very simple with regard to rules and can be played alarmingly quickly. Is it fast play?

The real key is how fast can a player decide to move. That may not the rules, its the is player.

I admit in complex situations its not the rules that are a problem but me. Like a chess game sometimes its hard despite the rules.

So is fast play just a simple dice roll game with no thought needed. There are games like that but to me they are not fast play they are POOR play.

Hmm. I agree about keeping players focused on the game and making decisions promptly. I notice no one's mentioned rules appropriate for the size of the game, which is another game-killer.

But the rules themselves sometimes really are the problem. Some of the old-timers will remember heavy cavalry melees in CLS, which were notoriously slow to resolve. And I would not use blast templates or bounce sticks with adolescents unless I wanted them to spend the afternoon arguing about who was just in or just out.

Before you let the rules off the hook altogether, ask yourselves how long it takes to move troops or resolve combat once the player has made a decision. It can be depressingly long sometimes.

Now a fast game is "snakes and Ladders"
link

Rules are simple and no thought needed. To me many wargames look a lot like this very simple rules and dominated by dice so minimal thought needed. Is this the definition of "Fast Play". So is it fast play or boring play?

Rules are simple and no thought needed. To me many wargames look a lot like this

Yeah. There's one called Arcane Warfare Excel 10 that has no randomization, therefore eliminates much of the Markov space for planning, making it a trivial game to play. Purely deterministic, each decision space has a closed-form analytical solution. So, not like Chutes and Ladders. Like Tic Tac Toe.

As to 40k & 30k, I wish they were more streamlined.

Hail Caesar and Pike & Shotte seem pretty streamlined to me though I'm still learning both.

So in reality nobody can define what a fast play game is. On that basis its impossible to define how to make it faster.

I care more that they are a good set of rules. If they happen to be fast playing then so much the better but it isn't required. Fast playing does not necessarily equate to a good set of rules.

Another discussion where we have a hard time defining a term and coming to any consensus agreement but interesting none the less.

I can't really talk about "fast playing" but I do know what slow playing is for me.

It's figuring out who goes next (it should be obvious), waiting for people to do something while you sit idle, attempting to "activate" a non-active unit (units should always be under some type of order or able perform a drill to respond to a situation without an official order), determining initiative each turn, figuring out opportunity fire.

Basically, anything that immerses the player into concepts or and rules that have little or no resemblance to the manuals or real life tactics and strategies.

Wolfhag

I guess as a minimum you can describe a "good" set of rules as being, My opinion obviously)

1)the bare minimum of rules needed to achieve the designers goal.
2) Its basic mechanisms should be self consistant.
3) Conditions, IF THEN like tactical and morale factors should be avoided as much as possible.
4) die rolling to be a minimum as it does waste time rolling and sorting buckets of die.
5) The number and variety of markers (overwatch, pinned, shaken) etc should be a minimum to prevent "sorting time". Stargrunt 2 had much to be said for it but sorting for the right counter was a pain.
6) Players paying attention. Inevitably multi player games are not "high quality" game rearely if ever are there a full sey of likeminded players with the required skill for a challenging complex game.

Now with ths set you have the basics of a "possibly" Fast Play game. I re-played the reconnisance game I recently played and posted with my co-author. However restriction on unit placement were relaxed. This created a much more complex game which took time to resolve, We considered the game was "over" i.e the fun bits were complete after about 8 Bound. Typicaly the equivalent of perhaps 16 bounds in a more conventional game.

Now trhe guy playing last time admitted that although the rules were identical, this second game was to hard ythe complexity of options was too much for him. so for hime it was not a fast game. We did 8 bounds and I did the AGM (I'm the Chairman)!

So we are left with:-

Any well designed game conformed as above CAN be fast Play. The speed of play then depends entirely on other issues.

1) Keeping the number of "things" to move low as physicaly moving things takes time and all need some form of resolution.
2) the level of thought and planning needed. Chess conforms to all of the above, simple easy fast resolution and low bit count. Again is it fast play, proably not.
3) Players not knowing the rules even if simple to start with will slow the game dramaticaly. Even chess is slow if you have to teach the moves at the same time. Drafts (Checkers) would be quicker but again is a less complex and hence less interesting game at low levels.

So is fast play really about limiting player options, potentially well below reality to simplify decision making. 1.e minimum thinking time.

Rallynow is correct good rules are good rules.

Fastplay may be the worst of all worlds, as if its really quick no real thinking time is involved.