"It is our fault" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

The next great ruleset comes out, elegant but simple, we all love it, then we ask the designer to cover our special requests, amendments are made, then a new edition, until the rules are so complicated that we welcome the next new ruleset! Is it our fault?

39% said "yes, it's our fault"
39% said "no, it's not our fault"

1) It's only the fault of those who said it was their fault.
2) Pretty darn close result either way!

If it did did what it was supposed to do it Your fault, you bought the wrong rules. Asking for special amendments is either you have no understanding of the limitations of simulation or you have no idea how rules integrate together.

Rule sets are such a wide topic that generalities cannot be easily or sensibly applied.
Some probably improve and some probably don't improve with updates.
An updated rule set might lose some "likers" and attract new ones to replace them.

The ones that leave will often create hyperbole about how the rules set can no longer be played by any mortals. The new players will have found a set of rules that suits their likes.

Always good to make one's personal likes into universal truths (?)

martin

I remember years ago being part of a group of gamers who felt they could "improve" on a set of ancients rules, which was eventually printed as an unofficial version 2.0. The result was reasonable and was used by about 24 to 48 players in a campaign which lasted for years, but I have relooked at the rules years later and its clear to me it was not better. It was more complex, filled with more troop types, options and modifiers and became so complex new players were effectively excluded. I suspect its human nature?

Good point Peter

martin

Its horses for courses. A game suitable for beginners is likely to be pretty poor for an experienced player that wants a challenge.

A game unsuitable for a beginner is not a bad game. You don't learn to fly a top of the range fighter before you master a simple trainer.

Personally I don't see war gaming as a home for the perpetual beginner. Folk can learn but they have to put some effort in. Like all sports you only get out what you put in.

Valid point, but it does depend what the objective is. A game like chess is simple, but has more than enough for both beginner and experienced player, as long as the "simple" game system allows for depth. On the other hand sometimes you want to understand why something occurs, so a complex set of rules like Corps Commander which actually gives you an understanding of how to co-ordinate multiple weapons systems in achieving an objective, also works. Both are valid.

What I discovered was adding unnecessary bling to an existing game system, which already worked, rarely ends well. The detail needs to be designed in from the beginning.

One good example is the DBx troop types, it looks complex, but it has a clear game system objective, so is acceptable, even if it takes a bit of effort to understand. Adding an extra "grade" of "Hopeless" for elephants because you felt the Carthaginian elephants at Zama were unusually poor quality may not be such a good idea.

To be honest my "Reading of the tea leaves" is that Chess would not be defined as a simple game by the bulk of the TMP readership.

While Chess has very simple rules the game requires very precise thought and concentration and to be good you have to read lots of books on opening theory to be really good. Most folk would seem to me, would calls that as very hard/complex game too many decisions to make. No time to chat and look at the models.

You are correct, the Chess game system is simple, but it had real depth. A good board game is similar. But where its important, its easy to learn to play, even if badly.

I suspect that is the holy grail, nice simple game system with real multi-layer depth. Easy to learn, but hard to master.

I was suppressed last night. I looked at a friends ancient rules, not known to be complex. The actual rules ran to 139 pages! Out own rules often called complex only runs to about 70 pages. Now our book is longer but that adds stuff like engineering which most folk will never use.
So it looks like Multi-layer depth makes TMP'ers think of complex, not simply how much text.

I think we are all striving for that perfect game that balanced complexity and playability.

Attempting to modify another set you did not write by adding more abstracted and IF-THEN-ELSE rules and die roll modifiers did not work for me. You are limited by the pips on the dice and not knowing what the designer abstracted into the rules makes it hard to know what to add.

I think the best way is to design a game with all of the complexity built in and then start taking features out or combining them. Attempting to add complexity to a simple game is too hard.

Eliminating abstracted and artificial rules not found in the tactics manuals like unit activation's, initiative determination, opportunity fire, over watch restrictions, and IGYG movement would make games easier to understand and play, especially for beginners.

I understand you need these rules because you have to artificially parse the action within a game turn of a specific amount of time. How that's done is one of the biggest design issues.

Unfortunately, most game rules interrupt the natural and intuitive flow that a player would react and act in real combat. Many games can give the right "feel" but bear very little resemblance to how a real engagement would have played out. Why? Well opponents don't take turns shooting or moving and real units don't need to be activated or micro managed, they normally have an objective they attempt to capture or under a standing order.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag has it INTEGRATION of rules is the key issue. How all the rules interact to form a single whole. Put it another tway a good ruleset is much greater than the sum of its parts. Simply adding parts does not work unless they are already part of the framework. We have been able to do some VERY minor changes to our own rules in 12 years, as the changes fall easily withing the overall framework (effectively a bit of polishing), stuff outside that would not work. You could not add a new morale system into our system for instance, it just would fail dereadfully.

I think there is an old saying, "game rules are never finished". If you have a game designed around artificial and abstracted rules you can come out with a new version every few years with a different slant on abstracted and artificial rules. Sometimes it's better and sometimes it's worse.

In a tactical 1:1 game I think one of the most difficult rules to model is Opportunity Fire. Some people like it simple and some want to recreate it in greater detail.

I've heard some players state that realistically "all shooting is Opportunity Fire" which I can't totally disagree with. For example, a unit moving at 20kph is moving at about 5.5m/second. In a 30 second turn it could move about 160m and into and out of a shooters LOS a few times.

The shooting tank or gun could realistically get off 3-4 rounds in that amount of time under good conditions. So in an IGYG or unit activation mechanic where is the target when it gets shot at and can the unit shoot more than once each turn or when activated? I tried doing it with 5 second turns but that opened up a new set of problems but then I'm not a game designer with commercial credits.

I define "elegant" if a rule with a fairly high level of abstraction is playable, intuitive and gives the right "feel". It will have a greater or lesser level of realism depending on the player but still does not recreate what happens on a second-to-second basis like on a real battlefield.

At the 1:1 tactical level computers can use timing in a more realistic way to recreate the action and not use the rule abstractions we are stuck with. So I guess if you could reverse engineer a video tank simulation recreating the timing you might have something, especially for opportunity fire. Adding any detail would involve determining the timing and effect which may be easier way to integrate new rules, weapons and features. But if you did I'm sure many players would still stick to their traditional rules. You can't please everyone.

I think the best game rule system would be an "open source" that would allow players to plug in their own values and implement rules based on the tactics manuals of the day without impacting or complication the overall design. I sure there is a system out there that can do something similar.

Wolfhag

"So in an IGYG or unit activation mechanic where is the target when it gets shot at and can the unit shoot more than once each turn or when activated? "

In my still-WIP skirmish rules, a figure in 'overwatch' rolls a D6 when an opposing figure moves into view. On an Odd result, the opponent continues it's move, on an Even result, the overwatch figure can take a shot (this represents the fleeting instant a target is in view, and whether the shooter can open fire on it.) And, more than one shot can be made against subsequent targets, weapon & ammo allowing (e.g. a crossbow is only going to get one shot, so make it count… ;-)

Zephyr1,
Well that's a solution I never thought of. Looks simple and works.

I've mentioned timing so let's look at a real-life timing situation for opportunity fire and the problem a crew faces:

From my research and reading, under good conditions, a tank crew should be able to spot, engage, aim and fire at a moving target in 10-15 seconds if the threat is in its 90 degree aspect. It could be shorter if with a combat experienced crew, using a Snap Shot, over watching in the spot the target appears and if they already know the range. It could be longer with a poorly trained crew, if the crew has poor Situational Awareness, suppressed, buttoned up, distracted or flanked/surprised.

You could determine the timing to shoot at a moving target by randomizing the historical base engagement and aim time with a die roll. Good crews and fast turret traverse would be a little quicker, poor crews and slow traverse would take longer. So it could be done with a D6 die roll and 1-3 modifiers to determine how many seconds to spot, engage and shoot. The player can choose to shoot sooner with an accuracy penalty, just as real crews did. It may not be any more complicated than any other system if using the right play aids and game turn/timing. Would it be playable and understandable?

In the above example, a crew would probably have to use a Snap Shot trading decreased accuracy to shoot before the target disappears as 6 seconds is less time than a crew normally needed. These would be decisions the player makes. Using timing leaves less to chance and relies more on player "Risk-Reward Decisions". Overall better crews are quicker, but may not be if they are suppressed, flanked, or buttoned up.

Wolfhag