"Making the Dice attack interesting" Topic

I am trying to make an attack interesting by making a list of things to pass before attck hits then assighn damage by what sort of attack or weapon used. Im thinking WW2 for this

To make a ranged attack roll a D6 for each listed task in order, if you fail any then no attack

Ranged Weapon Attack

Load If Not Loaded Roll a D6 2 and Above to Load
Aim To Aim Roll a D6 Short >1 Medium >2 Long >3
Fire Roll a D6 >1 to Fire 1 is a missfire Check(Roll D6 >3 To Fire)

Range Roll a D6 Short >1 Medium >2 Long >3 (Plus/Minus Weapon Modifier(Ranged attacks))
Cover Roll a D6 No Cover >1 Light Cover >2 Heavy Cover >3
Damage Roll a D6 (>5 Kill) (>3 & < 6 Wounded) (>0 < 4 graze)

Weapon Modifers to the D6 rolls (Ranged attacks)
pistol -2
rifle -1
MG 1
LMG +1
MMG +2
HMG +3

To make a Melee attack roll a D6 for each listed task in order, if you fail any then no attack

Melee Attack

Grip Weapon If Not Griped Roll a D6 2 and Above to Grip
Focus To Focus Roll a D6 Flesh attack>1 Criple attack >2 Kill attack >3
Strike Roll a D6 >1 to Strike 1 is a Drop Weapon Check(Roll D6 >3 To Strike)

Range Roll a D6 Close >1 1 yard >2 greater than 1 yard >3
Armor Roll a D6 No Armor >1 Light Armor >2 Heavy Armor >3
Damage = focus Attack effects

Focus Attack Effects Table
(Add to Focus roll Plus/Minus Weapon Modifier(Melee attacks))
Kill Roll a D6 (>5 Kill) (4 or 5 Wounded) (<4 graze)
Criple Roll a D6 (>4 criple) (4 Wounded) (<4 graze)
Flesh Roll a D6 (>3 Wound) (3 Graze) (<3 No effect)

Weapon Modifers to the D6 rolls (Melee attacks)
Knife -2
sword -1
pistol 1
MG +2
LMG -1
MMG -2
HMG -3

Too much die rolling for me, and modern firearms don't misfire 1 out of 6 times.

Far too many die rolls.

I think many WW2 gaming interests have gone so far towards the skirmish side of the hobby, that the "war" in wargaming is becoming a distant memory.

Seems gaming parlance is devolving into a want for endless reaction tests, to see what the rules dictate the player might consider doing next…..tactics? – they're an unlikely option that might be interjected – maybe in between all the dice rolling.

(obviously, I'm not recognizing the hobby here much anymore)

Agree with 79thPA, advocate, and FlyXWire. You have too many die rolls.

Jim

It does fulfill the goal of being interesting.

Wolfhag

Complicated does not equal interesting. I would never play rules half as complicated.

I don't disagree. I think a game should be judged by the designer's goal. However, designers never think their game is complicated, do they?

Wolfhag

Well, deconstructing complexity is one way to attempt, and for promoting design elegance.

(obviously, game design should be more than tabulating lists, but so much more on how to integrate "lists" without the list part being obvious)

Mainmaner has made an effort here, and he's also ended up in the crosshairs. None of us have meant this as a personal attack on him.

You know, on a related but different matter, I'm wondering when was the last time some game company or design house (maybe even a gamer forum) actually polled wargamers as to what they like in rules, and what they don't?

As an example -

Gamer, do you mind the use of game aids, such as tokens on the playing surface during your game -
Mind 1?
Mind 2-3?
More?
Or don't mind any amount?

(one of my pet peeves – you work on terrain and nice minis, and you have to unload a boatful of fiddly game reminders right next to your stuff during the experience – that's an "un-elegant" design feature IMO)

Btw, long thread, but since Tango linked this one from a prior posting of his, then it's ok, so now these ladies don't mind being game tokens and they would be fine on my playing surface too (see, people can make personal exceptions for most anything).

You make a good point.

I only have one, that's a movement marker showing speed, direction, and proportional distance moved each turn.

Depending on the level of detail you want to play, there are 1-3 variables to track off the table and they are factors the opponent should not see.

Wolfhag

"However, designers never think their game is complicated, do they?"

I was that way once, but started simplifying things when I got tired of trying to memorize everything… ;-)

IMO, Simplicity in rolling makes a more enjoyable game. The focus should be on bigger issues like tactics, suppression, movement and the use of different equipment to accomplish different goals.

Agree with most of the comments above. The first question is what exactly is the game trying to model and why? Some games have a heavy emphasis on modelling weapon performance and effectiveness, others place greater emphasis on modelling the performance and effectiveness of the men and their commanders. Players choose a rule set that plays to their area of greatest interest in the period.

Creating an effective model is one thing, turning it into a playable game system is another thing altogether. Abstraction seems to be the key part of the process. How to distil this down to its core components and create a number of decision points that make for a playable system while retaining enough of the modelling of the situation to remain historically plausible.

It's quite a skill, both in terms of rules design and rule writing. Great rules ideas can suffer from poor rules writing and no amount of elegant rule writing can save a poor design.

So my first question is, how good are the rules at modelling the situation they purport to cover? The next question is how playable are they? The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive.