"Free Rules "Plug-In" Question" Topic

Looking for your thoughts on the question of FREE rules "plug-ins" as an idea … good idea or dumb idea?

Here is the concept, create a specific section of rules for one aspect of a game, say Tank vs Tank Combat or Activation Sequence, that can be "plugged in" to your favorite rules.

For example say that your favorite rules use I Go U Go or a completely random activation method which you don't like, the Activation Plug In would give you a new way to determine the turn sequence.

Or your favorite rules just allow for knocking out AFVs with no provision for damaged tanks and you'd like a way to incorporate AFV damage into your games.

I've gamed with people who like to make up and use "house rules" to cover these situations, so does a ready made set of free Plug Ins you could download and use make any sense?

Appreciate your thoughts!

Yes, that would be great!

Not every plug in would necessarily work with every system, but the core concept is sound.

Lee, are you proposing something like a "Modules" approach to rules, where gamers could choose between a number of self-contained variations on a set's basic rule sections/mechanisms? Say, here's the IGOUGO turn sequence module for the rules, or, here's the random activation module for the rules, or here's a card-driven activation module for the rules…..and then as users, each gamer could assemble their own officially-sanctioned variant of this rules system, by choosing which preferred module they would be using for activation, combat, morale, etc.?

Almost like having basic rules, and advanced rules, but then with even more variety, such as having core choices to allow greater variations to such basic game mechanisms as choosing the type of turn activation method used (and all these choices being options within a single rules system)?

FlyXwire. No but it sounds like an interesting idea. We all have favorite sets of rules but they usually have something we'd like to change. For example my CAC rules have a Turn Sequence of Side A Moves; both Sides Fire; then Side B Moves. Say for example you didnt like that and wanted a Random Activation system, you could use my Activation Plug-In instead.

I've used my rules as an example but they'd be generic enough to be used with most of the popular rules on the market. That way rather than looking for the perfect set of rules, gamers could Pulg-In fixes for what they didnt like about the rules they currently use. Lots of game clubs do this by adopting House Rules.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Well, I do like your idea about an AFV/Vehicle damage plug-in.

As you say, we've got those favorite rules, and such as for WW2, that set might be fast-play, and where vehicle damage is not detailed. Then the thought arises – "gee, wish I could use our fast-play [Tank On Tank rules for example] but for more tactical action, but we can't really reduce down the unit scale usually employed for a good match, to a smaller unit action, because there's not enough granularity in the stock combat resolution mechanics to enable the conversion…

This probably a typical thought process quite a few of us have entertained, but then dropped because of the work evolved to pull it off – so then we go looking for another rule set that might somehow fit our ambitions (somewhat).

For combined-arms utility, would want a plug-in for Infantry effects too (are you accepting plug-in request at the moment here)? :)

Yes. Accepting Plug-In Requests. Already planned tank vs tank and actuvation/turn sequence. Considering infantry, air strikes and artillery as well. Thanks for your thoughts!

Stupid question maybe Lee, and forgive me if we have been in touch before but my mind is messed up this year, but please post a link to your rules now. Thank you.

No such thing as a dumb question! Link below. Actually I have two sets of WWII rules(with Modern & NAM rules on the way).

The PLUG-INs would be based on my Skirmish Action Rules (and upcoming NAM rules). I have NOT posted any PLUG-INs yet, I was waiting to get reactions here and will announce which ones and when I will post.

Thanks for your feedback! Lee

Link. actionsrules.com

The problem is that war games rules like any good systems are an integrated, so removing any one part could disturb another part. A simple example is that adding a D6 section to our rules which are D20 based could well derail the system as a whole. Even changing to alternate random activation could well make it far more unrealistic, as it was not designed for that. Some things would be much easier, having better terrain rules with better defined dead ground may well work for a relatively wide range of rules, but move distances may need to be expressed as a percentage of a standard open ground move for the rule set. Again there could be some games where your definition may class with the basic game definitions so could be an issue.