"When Wargames Go Bad..." Topic

A show of hands please.

How many of us have set up terrain and troops and played a few turns (or perhaps as many as seven) only to have a "creeping sense of ‘something' develop" which results, ultimately, in the cancellation and dismantling of the scenario?

This recently occurred on my tabletop, where a fictional battle between Ottomans and Medieval Polish was being staged/played/solo-wargamed.

I am tempted to "point the accusatory finger" at the rules, but as I have employed this set before and with some "success," I am not absolutely sure the recent cancellation can be laid at the feet of the rules.

At the risk of self-diagnosing, it is symptomatic of a "tragic flaw" in my character? Evidently, I am not able to finish what I start. In my defense, if I am not enjoying something, if I am not getting out of it what I thought I might, then why should I continue with it? For example, if I go see movie (and I would have to think very long about when I last did that) and think it's a terrible film, do I still sit through it because I've paid the money, or do I "take the loss" and go spend my time doing something else?

I wonder if this "condition" is related to those who have a "lead mountain?" I have often "heard" wargamers speak of their "lead mountain." How does it accumulate, and is it also indicative of some kind of character flaw or perhaps just an attention deficit?

I am trying to recall if I've ever had a "bad" wargame when attempting a historical refight. I think there probably has been a few occasions. But I think that there have been many more "bad" one-off scenarios.

Is the trick or answer in scenario design? Is it in rule selection? Is it a combination of the two? Is it a combination of the two and other factors or variable that I've not thought to mention?

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Chris

Hard for me to maintain interest in a solo game unless it's a historical refight, so I can tell myself it's research. Otherwise, I play a few turns, then go off and actually do something--like painting castings. This seems to be what you're describing. A personality type, perhaps, but I'm not sure I'd call it a flaw.

As a recovering lead mountaineer, I think it's mostly a tendency to take advantage of bargains or opportunities coupled with an unwillingness to admit the limits of lifespan, painting (and gaming) time, and the very real costs of unusable stuff--clutter, annoyance and the inability to find things. It seems almost certain now that I will die with thousands of purchased but unpainted castings, and several armies painted but seldom used, wasting time and money which could have been put to better use. But it's easier to see now what I should have done than it was 40+ years ago. So some foolishness, and sometimes just how things fell out. But I don't see the relationship to stalled solo games.

There have been a couple of projects were I bought all the figures, painted about half and then quit never to return. I have also finished a project and played it once and then never again. I lose interest, I move on to something else or something better comes along that is new and shiny. I only stopped one game because I realized I had know idea how complicated the rules really were.

I ran a Gettysburg game, more a recreation. The first two days were great. Day three and everything was set for Picket's charge. I looked at the table and just could not continue. I left the game up for a few days and then ended it.

Sometimes a scenario doesn't work. I hosted a Napoleonic scenario for my club which was intended to be a "gallant rear-guard action." But the way I had set up the forces and the exit point meant that the retreating force could "win" on points simply by fleeing as fast as possible, leaving only a single sacrificial lamb for the slaughter. By turn 3 it was clear that there wasn't going to be any fighting, or any more decisions to make, so we called it. My fault as scenario designer.

I can't tell you how many campaigns I've started, played a few games, and never returned. I think the "new and shiny" wears off quickly, especially without a club or friends to keep the interest level up.

Plenty of times when we've started a scenario and it's obvious the victory conditions can't be achieved, for example "exit off the opposite table edge" but it takes 30 turns to get there and you only have enough playing time for 10

my own expereince is that the more time you spend on a scenario the less likely it is to be a dud. However my personal experiencen is it does not improve the chances of it being a "great scenario". Quick scenarios can more regularly result in a mediocre to dud standard. However the percentage of "great" scaenarios is similar.

Experience helps and a thorough understanding of the rules is key. I have seen scenarios using other rules that were impossible as the writer had little or no grip on what was possible with a given game system. Thats proably lack of experience.

There may be another strand, you can write a great senario that proves a dud. To me a great senario needs to heve the level of complexity seen in real world situations where there are a multipicity of options with good and bad aspects. However some audiences are not comfortable with that sort of top level gaming and want somthing far less challengeing, plonk figures on table and advance with minimal thought and spend more time chatting than playing. Fine if that what floats your boat. I personaly am bad at writing such straitforward scenarios, there is always the irrisistable tempation to make it more "interesting", testing the generals ability to plan and exicute their mission.

Played a play by mail 1815 campaign, culminating in a final battle on the table. The French player had run rings around the allies and the game would have consisted of the French marching down the road picking off isolated Bdes and Battalions, not much of a game but a testament to his strategy in the campaign,

Tally Ho!

Is the trick or answer in scenario design? Is it in rule selection? Is it a combination of the two? Is it a combination of the two and other factors or variable that I've not thought to mention?

It comes from a lot of things, I think. This kind of thing does happen to me from time to time and for me the following factors are in play:

1 – My understanding level of the rules. If I think I am getting things wrong, or have to stop and look up rules so often they break the flow of the game, that increases the risk I will stop.

2 – If there is something that is making me stop with the scenario, e.g. if it is too complicated, or I feel it looks one-sided, or I don't understand what to do, that is a risk.

3 – If there is something that I don't like about the set-up, could be figures, could be terrain, more often that I have underestimated the paraphernalia that a given game needs to make it run smoothly. Basically anything that stops smooth play.

4 – But the biggest reason is that if there is something else bothering me. I find solo wargames are a thing to enjoy on a good day, or a normal day; but they don't (for me) make a bad day good. Strangely, F2F games or RPGs can do the latter for me.

Occasionally— but I think for me it's less the scenario than some external stressor, or quite honestly a recognition that sometimes what I want from a game isn't the figs or the rules or the scenario or the imagination, but the interaction with friends. If I'm really in the mood for the latter, I need to find a way to bring that about, ‘cause solo ain't gonna fill that glass.

I don't play solo games but sometimes regular games become unsatisfactory for some reason. Often I find I want to quit far sooner than my usual companions.

I don't play solo, either. If something goes sideways, we just play it out, noting it for future reference. Cheers!

There's too much to unpack here: for a start, is it really a character flaw to bail out of something that you're doing for fun that you're finding isn't fun?

I have set up a boardgame before, and then for whatever reason just felt like "meh," and packed it away again without playing it.

+1 Bigfootlover – took 2 hours setting up the Siege of Jerusalem, and then decided to go to the pub instead. That boardgame still remains unplayed, one day…

I only play solo if I'm play testing stuff. But yes, sometimes things just don't work out (which happens quite a bit when play testing!).

When playing with a real players, most people are happy to press on rather than throw in the towel. Gaming time is precious and we've made the effort to turn up.

Solo or with my playtest crew, if it "goes bad" we will make an in-game adjust (you rolled four ones in a row, take a couple units back and I'll note it; wow – that distribution doesn't work at all, let's back up a couple and try something a little different). I try to playtest enough that it doesn't happen outside "the inner circle", that is people interested in playtesting through the rough spots.

In my limited experience, historical refights are poblemmatic because there is a tendency when designing the scenario or when playing the game to make the same strategic decisions (e.g. refight day 3 of Gettysburg as Pickett's Charge) and deviations from the historical result are often attributable more to issues with the rules or the randomness of dice than to the tactical decisons made. I think it would be more interesting to do historical campaigns (e.g. Waterloo – June 15-July 8 or Jackson in the Valley) with map movement that translates to the table top when battles need to be fought. But that's larger scale operation, takes longer, and hard to do solo. Let players make decisions about army dispersion, routes of march, logistics, etc. that force the decisions on when and how battles are fought. What would July 1963 look like if Lee had ended up taking Longstreet's advice after day 1. Would he end up up facing Meade at Pipe Creek, for example. Someone featured that type of solo campaign to tabletop approach in TMP a year or so ago, recreating the ACW Peninsula campaign, that I thought was brilliant.