"Random by design?" Topic
53 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board
Action Log
25 May 2022 3:24 a.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "Random by desighn?" to "Random by design?"
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Pages: 1 2
UshCha | 25 May 2022 2:05 a.m. PST |
Game design – this is well outside my normal wargame considerations but I thought it interesting, at least to me. I had an intersting thought last night while playing Dominoes. Our best player lost resoundingly, to be honest the random element was spoiling the game as the skill was taken out of the game and it becomes snakes and ladders random and boering. However I do wounder if some of the War Games that really take simulation almost as an afterthought are designed to have a high random effect simply so bad players win occationaly even if its undeserved. Kind of like giving a pro tennis player an eye patch so he can't play and letting a kid win who could not possibly win ordinarily. I guess its liveable with, I will continue to play dominoes but it was a poor evening even though I won, winning like that is like cheating the win has no value. Certainly I am thankfull that this effect is very uncommon in our games by design, but even our games pall somewhat if they go too far outside the center of the normal distribution but its very rare. Some folk think this sor of thing is fun, to me it's a good simulation spoilt. If you learn nothing its not fun. Whats you opinion? |
Durban Gamer | 25 May 2022 3:26 a.m. PST |
A good basic point. Randomness ok only to the point where it demands more skill from players in reacting to unexpected changes in circumstances. |
UshCha | 25 May 2022 3:59 a.m. PST |
Durban Gamer, don't see it that way. Eadomness only where its statuisticaly valid. Shooting should reflect a reasonable reflection of actual proability of hit. In any games the randomness is much higher. In a well designed game the pklayer should be able to generate the unexpected way, deploying fast from coloum so oposition cannot move from dispoersed positions as fast. real events not random factors. Real trafic jambs not random factor traffic jambs. |
pzivh43 | 25 May 2022 5:53 a.m. PST |
I kind of agree with both of you but lean towards Durban Gamer. Rules are never perfect, and players are always looking for how to manipulate them, so random events are OK. Yes, a player screwing up and creating a traffic jam at a crossroads are fine, but also like the random event that causes a breakdown of the lead vehicle that forces a player to think on his feet and adapt. |
Extra Crispy | 25 May 2022 6:07 a.m. PST |
I'm just fine with randomness. And the kind of extreme randomness you describe in many cases is, in fact, a great part of gaming, at least for many. I do not play wargames to learn. I play to have fun, to create stories, and to share an event with friends. So to that end randomness can play a part. For example, in a fantasy game a lowly goblin held off a hero warrior for several turns, single handed. That one stand led to a victory for the forces of evil. BUT it made a great story. The owner of the goblin gave him a medal (painted it on his base). We still remember that game! |
DrSkull | 25 May 2022 6:42 a.m. PST |
Take out the randomness, you're playing chess, and who needs that? |
Wolfhag | 25 May 2022 7:37 a.m. PST |
Some players randomly make stupid moves. I can personally attest to that. Regarding the goblin holding off the hero. Using the game mechanics, what were the chances of that happening? Wolfhag |
doc mcb | 25 May 2022 7:44 a.m. PST |
I like Regimental Fire and Fury FOR SOLO PLAY because a few die rolls -- with d10s, so a wider range of outcomes -- counts so heavily. Makes it unpredictable. Face to face, my regular opponent and I have been discussing ways to reduce the randomness, which can, yes, outweigh skill. I contrast RF&F with JOHNNY REB because JR had LOTS of die rolls, so you had to plan for the occasional snake eyes. And indeed gameplay aimed at maximizing your oppoentns morale tests, because sooner or later he will roll snake eyes and instant rout. |
79thPA | 25 May 2022 10:18 a.m. PST |
I don't mind some randomness because unexpected things happen all of the time. Sometimes engagements are won or lost on nothing but luck. If you always know what is going to happen, there is no sense in playing the game. And it is a game. |
UshCha | 25 May 2022 10:38 a.m. PST |
Dr Skull while chess is a bit beyond me,. however we clearly have different opinions on what is fun. Extra Crispy, Clearly there are lots of opinions your memorably moment to me would not hold my attention save as a really good indication it was time to find a better set of rules. But that may be because I an a simulator not a war games player. Dominoes is a cheap game, saves the cost of doing the same thing with expensive models. So gamer's do like the "Domino" effect. Interesting. Clearly there are two Genre of games, Chess like, minimal to no random and Random games where random is deliberately set to mitigate against the better player. The opposite is snakes and Ladders a game with no skill. Interesting, a commercial designers fist decision is not how to simulate, but what level of random is required. No point spending hours getting it right if that is going to be scrapped in favor of allowing random wins. |
robert piepenbrink | 25 May 2022 11:04 a.m. PST |
I'd have said there was a spectrum, UshCha, rather than two genres--and that historical miniatures gaming couldn't be at the extreme "no randomness" end. Things happen in war. Guns jam, orders to subordinates don't get through or are misinterpreted and supply convoys miss a turnoff and arrive hours late. I always treasure Kipling's observation that generals are held accountable for so many things completely outside their control, that it's only fair that they sometimes attribute blind luck to careful planning. How much randomness is historical at different command levels and in different periods, I'll leave to other people. My rules as a miniatures gamer are two. (1) No single die roll should be more important that the player's decisions. This usually happens in scenario design--arrival times, activation rolls and the odd bridge-blowing. Mind you, that much randomness may well be historical--but it makes for a poor game. (2) Winning (or losing) a quick game--DBA, say--by a run of luck is acceptable. Having the same thing happen in a long game is not, with a break point around the one-hour mark. It's not a serious problem if you can spin the table and get another game in. If you're in doubt, look at a long run of games. If the same player wins most of the time, it's not luck. |
GildasFacit | 25 May 2022 11:21 a.m. PST |
The main issue I find in many rules is that probability isn't properly considered. Randomness can be generated by player interaction or a lack of information (purposeful or not) but I doubt that is the sort of randomness under discussion here. Saying +1 for short range is fine but how many take into account that +1 to hit from a 6 target doubles the probability but only adds 33% to a 4, 5 or 6 target. You may have a reasonable explanation of why that should be so but, to be honest, I doubt it has even considered. Allowing the extreme events ends up making battles exiting (if you like that sort of thing) but also makes tactics pointless as players tend to rely on good dice – and annoyingly, often get them. Finding that middle ground is difficult. A game that plays at acceptable speed with mechanics that can be fairly quickly grasped and (mostly) memorised yet gives a range of outcomes appropriate to the scale of engagement and the period setting is very rare. |
Saber6 | 25 May 2022 11:25 a.m. PST |
Still trying to figure out the random part of Dominoes The Draw? Deal? |
jwebster | 25 May 2022 12:30 p.m. PST |
Consider two games with a large degree of chance – Backgammon and Bridge. Experienced players will wipe the floor with beginners, although every now and then there will be a very short game that the beginner wins. So I would suggest that it is not randomness itself that is the problem you are having, but how the game responds to swings of fortune. When we look at the history of a battle, we see how the events played out, and we sometimes see a wargame as a simulation of those events. However to the people fighting that battle, there would seem to be a series of random events. They losing side would almost certainly have not given battle if they knew they had a 100% chance of losing (yes, I know there are exceptions) So I would say that randomness is a key part of a wargame, but would like to call out two really important points made earlier (GildasFacit) probability isn't properly considered Completely agree – some rules can give very strange outcomes, or at least an unrealistically high probability of that outcome. I submit that this is a fault of rule design, not randomness as a feature (robert piepenbrink) Winning (or losing) a quick game--DBA, say--by a run of luck is acceptable. Having the same thing happen in a long game is not This is a fantastic example of the tradeoff between playability and simulation I would like to thank everyone on this thread – so often threads on the internet are just people stating their opinions, instead of listening to others John |
Herkybird | 25 May 2022 12:31 p.m. PST |
Randomness in rules is one of the bugbears I have struggled with. Its always a question of balance, and what the players find fun. Each player likes different levels of randomness in results, so I always try to ascertain the median point when I write them. You can't please everyone all the time, all you can really hope for is an 'equality of dissatisfaction'! |
Wolfhag | 25 May 2022 12:48 p.m. PST |
I use a modified binomial table with a single D20 roll that eliminates the "random" unrealistic and unhistorical outcomes. It's main use is for determining causalities. When an opponent completely outflanks and attacks you, to the defender it may seem random but to the attacker it is not. I do use a SNAFU rule with the results being historical but with a small chance of it happening. It's one of the most fun and entertaining parts of the game because it creates suspense each time the dice are rolled. Wolfhag |
Zephyr1 | 25 May 2022 2:32 p.m. PST |
" Randomness ok only to the point where it demands more skill from players in reacting to unexpected changes in circumstances." That pretty much describes every hand of Poker (those who want "predictability" in their games should stay well away from it… ;-) |
Just Jack | 25 May 2022 2:44 p.m. PST |
"Our best player lost resoundingly, to be honest the random element was spoiling the game as the skill was taken out of the game and it becomes snakes and ladders random and boering." I don't see how the random element spoiled the game, it's an integral part of the game, and the best player is the one that does the best job with what he's drawn and what his opposition plays. Sounds a lot like combat, actually ;) Incidentally, what's your solution to this problem? Make sure every player gets the same dominoes? When you play cards, do you simply forgo the deal and give each player the same cards? If not, I suppose it's just random and all down to luck… "However I do wounder if some of the War Games that really take simulation almost as an afterthought are designed to have a high random effect simply so bad players win occationaly even if its undeserved." I think if you're playing a wargame and everything goes exactly as you planned, it's less a representation/simulation of war than a game of dominoes! If you can forecast that your mechanized infantry unit will be on the objective in three turns and it always happens like that, you might as well be playing… Hell, I can't think of anything, because even children's games have elements of chance in them ;) "…and Random games where random is deliberately set to mitigate against the better player…" That is complete nonsense. Clearly you've never had to offset around an unforeseen obstacle or danger area, never had a vehicle break down on a road march and had to roll to your bump plan, never had helos show up an hour late for pickup or resupply, never had comms fail due to bad crypto or defective batteries, never had to ford a river that wasn't on the map, never had a Lieutenant get completely lost… In my humble opinion, those things must be represented by mechanisms devoted to adding a random element to the game (and there are many, whether card-driven activation, diced for movement, random events, etc…) since they cannot be foreseen and thus not accounted for in simulation. I took part in too many TEWTs to count, and what always seemed to surprise the commanders was how real troops were never able to reach their destination as quickly as the simulated troops, even though they weren't being shot at… To me, randomness goes too far when it takes all decision-making away from the tabletop commander, or renders it irrelevant. V/R, Jack |
Extra Crispy | 25 May 2022 3:52 p.m. PST |
This thread reinforces a thought I've had before, that applies at least to most gamers I know. Gamers are happy to lose because they blundered, or because a die roll or two didn't go their way. But they *hate* to lose to the system. For example, if a game comes down to a critical die roll someone will win or lose as a result. But that's okay. Sometimes the hero dies, some times not. But when the randomenss outweighs the player's actions, neither winning nor losing are particulary satisfying. |
gamertom | 25 May 2022 5:06 p.m. PST |
I just looked up "randomness" in Wikipedia (the math physics, and similar articles are sound; social ones are not always). I liked the opening statement as applied to this discussion: "In common usage, randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable, but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will tend to occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is not haphazardness; it is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome." Given this "randomness" needs to be in wargaming. |
UshCha | 26 May 2022 1:46 a.m. PST |
gamerton, that is correct. What I an trying to get over is that if the standard deviation is too large then the variation can get outside the range on interesting games. Even in our rules you can gat very unusual results but at several million to 1; so given the small number oif games we will encounter very few or none (typicaly). In Dominoes that night we had a lot of bad draws that left one guy little or no chance of winning. That indicates that the standard deviation is very broad, in my humble opinion that meant the game was less interesting. Now I have met players who liked a game because it was sufficebntly random that the best player did not always win. Kind of like expecting a kit to outplay a proffesional footballer. PS its not sour grapes I lose more often than I win but its nothing to do with randomness. |
GildasFacit | 26 May 2022 1:54 a.m. PST |
gamerton – they key words in that quote are " if the probability distribution is known " " tend to occur ". It is virtually impossible to know the probability distribution of most events on a wargaming table and focusing on what SHOULD occur blinds you to what COULD occur and its effects. Too much semantics in that summary for it to be useful. The conclusion actually contradicts an earlier statement in the quote as well. Nobody is saying that randomness (or uncertainty) should be dropped, it is clearly an aspect of any human endeavour so has to be present in some way. What is being said is that its effect (a) should not be greater than the effect of players decisions (b) should be properly integrated in the mechanisms rather than being a convenient 'add on' (c) should give a measure of uncertainty appropriate to the scale of the event and the period of the conflict. Wolfhag – I have done the same, not always using a Binomial model though. Taking the original probabilities in the rules and re-working to reduce the extreme events usually requires a single basic lookup table. A D20 also allows a more grainy approach to adds/penalties – which many mean too many small effects get included so care needs to be taken in keeping the system manageable. |
Wolfhag | 26 May 2022 5:53 a.m. PST |
What I like to see in a game is that the normal expectations of the player do not always come to fruition as it is too predictable and is boring. It's also not very historical but it also depends on the size of the units and game time scale. With platoon sized units and a game time of one hour turns things like individual gun jams and running out of ammo are not going to impact the unit. However, being slowed up by unexpected things like poor terrain, your vehicle getting bogged down in a sewage draining field (happens in Iraq), a bridge that will not support your vehicles, a change in plans because of new intel, etc will. As a squad leader you have to be aware the things that can go wrong with your unit. Some you can mitigate and some you cannot. Before going on patrol you check each guy to make sure he has all of the equipment he should and that it's functional. You won't have control over resupplies, medivacks, available fire support, etc. Personally, I don't see that as entirely random but a chance of success or failure based on past performance and maybe some other factors. Your point man may have a gut feeling something is not right up ahead so you need to check it out. Get poor intel update, guys drop out from heat stroke. Even weather does not randomly happen. There might be a chance of X% to rain. Maybe it does or maybe it does not. The way I see it anything bad that can happen will eventually happen and Murphy's Laws are always in effect. There is always a chance that an AP round may ricochet. There is an account of a German 128mm AP round ricocheting off a Sherman turret. Rounds can hit a weak spot or weld and have a better chance of penetration or partially ricochet or hit storage for no effect when the expectations were the target had a 90% change of being Brewed Up. Personally, I try to model real historical occurrences which I've read about. Some of the examples are on my SNAFU Chart here: TMP link Personally, I don't think you should model what "should" occur unless you are playing a specific historical scenario and you want the players to experience that. In many of the card activated games there are cards that can be drawn that will put a real historical event into the game even though historically it may have had a small chance of occurring. Twilight Struggle and COIN games are a good example. I recall someone mentioning that a British infantry unit in NWE had to withdraw because they ran into a swarm of bees. What are the chances of that happening???? Well, if you design a scenario and there is a bunch of bee hives on the table and if a vehicle plows through them or an arty or mortar round hits them the angry bees swarm and start attacking. Maybe it happens, maybe it does not. It depends on the game designer but ideally there should be a reason or some justification that the players can relate to. But like Just Jack stated, it should not be used to "penalize" a player. Movement could be pretty predictable if moving through friendly territory on a road and not under fire. Vehicles can fall off a bridge. However, a patrol that is moving to contact or expecting the enemy or ambushes is going to require many stops so movement distances could or maybe should be variable or with more randomness and unexpected encounters with the enemy. Wolfhag |
GildasFacit | 26 May 2022 6:50 a.m. PST |
My comment on what should occur was about the results of a random test (e.g. a dice throw). Even though the more likely outcomes are what expectations are based on (i.e. the should) considering the effect of the unlikely outcomes and the effect on the game (the could). Throw 6 dice with 5 or 6 to hit – expectation/mean result is 2 hits. 6 hits is possible though and may not be a sensible outcome in a situation. |
Wolfhag | 26 May 2022 8:02 a.m. PST |
Throw 6 dice with 5 or 6 to hit – expectation/mean result is 2 hits. 6 hits is possible though and may not be a sensible outcome in a situation. We were testing the gunfire rules for an ACW game using the same D6 system. On the first turn of shooting a player rolled a "Yahtzee" with a had full of all 6's. We all felt that it was unrealistic and unhistorical and would have thrown the game out of balance even though the odds would eventually even out. I came up with a modified binomial probability table, it's not 100% scientifically correct but works at keeping out the extreme results. So if 5 guys are firing and there is a 20% chance to hit a single D20 is rolled. A 1-6 no hits, 7-13 one hit, 14-18 two hits and 19-20 three hits. Mathematically there may be a 1 in 1000 chance of all 5 rounds hitting but then I need to roll 3x D10's and a larger table. That's if the target is entirely exposed and static or walking. Now the targeted player gets a "defensive save" on a D6 based on his troops defensive posture and exposure. If they are prone (one foot vertical exposed) they are not hit on a 1-5, two feet vertical exposed saves on a 1-4, three feet exposed on a 1-3, fully exposed and running/evading saves on a 1-2. In the right type of cover units can "Hunker Down" and not be hit by direct small arms fire but cannot fire back either (fully suppressed). The better their cover the lower the volume of small arms fire is and the harder it is to become a causality. It reflects different levels of suppression without additional rules and that the more a target is suppressed the harder it is to inflict a causality. Players can have their unit expose themselves more for a better chance to hit but also a better chance of being hit – his decision, not the dice. Morale Checks are determined by how much greater your volume of fire is than your opponent. So if you have opponents that are both prone and with roughly equal volumes of fire the firefight could go on for quite a while with no real results, I think that's more historical. This forces players to maneuver and use combined arms to have a decisive outcome. I think gives a better portrayal of small unit small arms engagements where the effects are mostly suppression and not causalities. I use 10 second turns to determine the results of simultaneous small arms volume of fire from teams and sections. Every 10 seconds both players roll to hit and roll their "defensive save". After that they can change their defensive posture increase their cover (get lower) and decrease their volume of fire or increase their volume of fire by getting higher but being easier to become a causality. So in this example the randomness is somewhat restricted preventing extremes. The "defensive save" eliminates the need for various to hit die/accuracy roll modifiers, speeds up the game and keeps the defensive player engaged and able to make historic "Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions". So in a VN game you could have your M60 gunner stand up and fire a more accurate and long burst for a better chance of a hit but maybe more important the much higher volume of accurate fire, even if not causing a causality, has a good chance of causing a morale check. Of course it could also back fire with him becoming a KIA for no real effect too. Wolfhag |
Martin Rapier | 27 May 2022 12:00 a.m. PST |
Combat is inherently unpredictable, although as a commander you probably have some idea how to stack the odds in your favour. As Clausewitz observed, war is like a game of cards. I'm always interested in the randomised factors used in professional military Wargames, and for the two British Army manual games aimed at brigade to Corps level operations published in the 1959s and 1970s respectively, the principal ones are outcomes from recce, randomised movement and obviously, combat. Even attacks at overwhelming odds have a significant chance of failure, which is borne out by OR data. |
Wolfhag | 27 May 2022 5:02 a.m. PST |
Martin, You bring up a great point that I think is hard to portray in a miniatures game with most rules. The larger the operation/attack the harder it is to coordinate and the greater the chance something will go wrong. Supplies don't show up, units miss their jump off points, air strikes are cancelled because of poor weather, etc. There is a board game "Lost Victory: Manstein At Kharkov, Winter 1943" that has a a SNAFU Chart the Russian player checks when making his attack. The larger the attack the greater the chance of something happening. So an attack that was supposed to have 4-1 odds may end up being 2-1 odds but you can't call it off. Outnumbering an enemy 10-1 rarely involves one assault at 10-1 odds. At Thermopylae the frontage was so small the best the Persians could do was multiple 1-1 assaults that got repulsed. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 27 May 2022 4:05 p.m. PST |
Recce and situational uncertainty are someting that wargames want and don't want at the same time. There is an inherant dislike in some quaters to dummy markers but they increase uncertaintay. Instead folk resort to random throws which is nowhere near as effective as there is no thought on either side, same with traffic jams, they are not random they are a unaccounted implication of an opperation. One of the most interesting things that comes out of some of our "big" games is that there is often two independant routes to a key point. The defender is aware the attacker can't take both effectively (my opponent is no Putin). How and when he comes down one or other is somthing the defender is not privy to. However it appears random to the low level defender, your grunt on the board knows little and the enemy apppearing seems random. Clearly it is not. Such situations are not well modlled by a dice throw or a card as they are very situation sensitive. Again this is very simulation oriented, once you leave this aspect for the desire for just a "game" like Dominoes, fantasy is acceptable. Most artillery is planned fire and timed before reliable radios so rolling a die is not neccessarily relistic, I guess its an attempt to eliminate players needing to think. GildasFacit, Wolfhag, I must admit I thought I was the only one using a D20; and yes its allows more credible granularity and for things like assults there is a spead of results but it is a resonable approximation of a standard distribution and has a controlled standard distribution. the randomness matches the granularity used. |
Andy ONeill | 29 May 2022 2:25 a.m. PST |
There are several mechanisms games use to limit orders. Pips in dbm, rolling per co order in several games, pk cards, you build a "hand" of cards in maurice. You could then have a chance per unit of them misunderstanding an order. Roll on a table or draw a card for what they decide to do. Doing nothing is a lot easier to implement though. |
Old Contemptible | 29 May 2022 5:29 p.m. PST |
We roll dice, that is the bases for our gaming. Randomness is built in. We never know for sure what the outcome will be, That is why we play the game. If we already know the out come then why play. If you are playing to learn history, randomness is a part of history. If you are playing just to have fun then randomness is part of the fun. |
UshCha | 01 Jun 2022 1:44 p.m. PST |
Old Contemptible
If you are playing just to have fun then randomness is part of the fun. Never understood that one. Some random is a necessary evil to us, but no fun, no skill in throwing a die, if there was it would be cheating and that's even worse.
|
Wolfhag | 02 Jun 2022 5:58 a.m. PST |
You have a weapon or tactic to use against your opponent. You evaluate the chances/odds of it succeeding modified by any Risk-Reward Decisions the player can make based on how the game is designed. I don't see it as "random" but a greater or lesser chance of a successful outcome. If you have an 80% chance to succeed the dice will generate a random number from 1-100 but your chance of success is still 80%, that's not random. That's how I see it. Wolfhag |
Last Hussar | 02 Jun 2022 6:45 a.m. PST |
Personally I'd prefer 2 dice averaged. The other method would be 2 dice, and you take the highest or lowest depending on circumstance. |
McLaddie | 03 Jun 2022 3:53 p.m. PST |
Game randomness is only one of two things, 1. A game mechanism to produce some unknowns into a game, which translates to anticipation and some level of excitement. The 'Hesitation' roll for brigades in Dave Brown's Pickett's Charge and the Napoleonic equivalent is one example. Dave said he picked the 1/3 chance of Hesitation because it worked in the game. In this case, regardless of whether it is more or less random, it is just a matter of game 'taste,' just personal preference. Some folks will like a lot of randomness, some won't, and folks have expressed their preferences here. 2d6, D10, averaging dice, or cards, is is just what something prefers. OR 2. A model of real randomness. An effort to capture the actual randomness of the battlefield. It is an attempt to capture the randomness of a particular current or historical environment. Someone suggested this is impossible, but it isn't. ALL simulations are built around such statistics. Wolfhag, in developing his game, used the collected battlefield statistics from the U.S. army for WWII and used it as the basis for his 'randomness.' Perfect? Of course not, but is lightyears closer to the actual randomness of events than guessing [i.e. picking something because it works in the game.] A designer asks a question and researches the answer, building a statistical base, like the army did or anyone trying to model reality. The modeling question is 'how often did brigades actually 'hesitate' on the battlefield…whatever definition for hesitate you use. One third of the time without staff support as in Dave's game? For instance, you ask whether infantry ever routed during a firefight in the Napoleonic wars. You collect 40-50 instances of firefights and find that it rarely ever happened, and if it did, it was on the first volleys, like the Spanish at Talavara. Otherwise in never happened. In fact, troops rarely ever withdrew from a firefight/exchanged volleys without something else like a charge or flank attack happening. That means a lot more work than just playtesting a game. It means also playtesting a simulation. Will that make for a better game? Could be, depending on your preferences. Players will be experiencing something deeper than a guess or 'just a game.' Modeling the randomness on actual events won't make a game more complicated, just the work involved. Both #1 and #2 are 'Randomness by Design." |
UshCha | 03 Jun 2022 7:22 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, well put my intent in this thread was about part 1 of your comment where it is more a game decision unsupported by statistical analysis of the real world. Further more it is about taste as you state. Randomness as a deliberate "theme" of the game, rather than based on a form off reality simulation. There is also a tendency to model rare events that did occour occatinally but for "fun" (not for me however), more frequently in the "game world" than in reality which is definitely taste rather than reality. |
McLaddie | 03 Jun 2022 9:19 p.m. PST |
Randomness as a deliberate "theme" of the game, rather than based on a form of reality simulation. UshCha: I don't understand this statement. Randomness is simply a game mechanic. Like all the rest of the game system, the random elements, the die rolls etc. are used to achieve the goals of the designer, fun game and/or model of actual battle. All the mechanics, they all are meant to support whatever 'theme' the designer has chosen. It is or isn't based on some real numbers. Randomness isn't a 'form' of anything, let alone of a 'reality simulation.' It is whatever the designer decides it is. It's just a game mechanic. I do agree that "There is also a tendency to model rare events that did occur occasionally but for "fun" (not for me however), more frequently in the "game world" than in reality which is definitely taste rather than reality. That is true for reported history. rare stands out in a participant's memory. Human nature. What do gamers remember? The game that went just as expected, or that surprising attack when all the die rolls went right? |
UshCha | 04 Jun 2022 1:55 a.m. PST |
McLaddie, this thread is about the merits of various designs. You are correct random is just random, this is more fundamentaly about what the design objectoives are and why. What do gamers remember? The game that went just as expected, or that surprising attack when all the die rolls went right?Clearly yet another statement which I personally cannot subscribe to. The games I remember are those where I look in terror at the situation and see no solution, only to look at my opponent who has the same look. What ensuses is a battle royal, who cares who wins, the battle is hard fought and both side cpomplemet each othet on strokes of command inpiratioin the other had not expected. A random dice roll included to simply change the game ballance for no logical reason would throw such a game immediately out of the set of interesting games and ruin the evening. We have played games that have a mechanism like that and its ruins the evening for us. Now there may be all sorts of reasons for this disparity in perception. If a game went just as expected then the scenario writer proabley doid a poor job. Pick up games can and do (in my opinion) become sterile, by definition the terrain is always "standard" within tight limits and if always using the same armies it soon becomes "same old, same old". Now introducing some random event may change the balance but it is again a matter of taste whether it makes it better, is different "better at any price". The logic and oppions in such matters is of interest to me, even if I don't like them myself. What level of randomness is "interesting" unbalanceing a game completely perhaps one in 10 games is that an acceptable price? I am writing games for a begginer and all too many of my traditional ) scenarios which to me are fairly basic seem to be too comcplex for them. Churning out "You attack the house" smackes of pick up games of which I have long grown bored of. So I am looking at how to write scenarios out of my comfort zone. Many games do seeme to have a theme of randomness as part of the "gamey" side rarther than the simulaton side so I am trying to understand the prefered limits for such an approach as its alien to my own prefrences. Included in the discussion yet again, is how often players meet and are they cognisant of the tactics of the time and familiar with the rules. This may shape the nature of the design including the "added game only randomness". A convention game is not a "proper" wargame to me intersting in some ways perhaps, but no real challenge as the opponets almost invariabley do not know the rules or tactics, so a true clash of wills and expertise is not going to occoure. I had Charles Grants scenario books these suffered from random to the extent thay often moved out of the set of interesting games and as such I soon realiesed thay were a waste of money for me. Again a matter of taste.
|
UshCha | 04 Jun 2022 2:03 a.m. PST |
McLaddie, this thread is about the merits of various designs. You are correct random is just random, this is more fundamentaly about what the design objectoives are and why. What do gamers remember? The game that went just as expected, or that surprising attack when all the die rolls went right?Clearly yet another statement which I personally cannot subscribe to. The games I remember are those where I look in terror at the situation and see no solution, only to look at my opponent who has the same look. What ensuses is a battle royal, who cares who wins, the battle is hard fought and both side cpomplemet each othet on strokes of command inpiratioin the other had not expected. A random dice roll included to simply change the game ballance for no logical reason would throw such a game immediately out of the set of interesting games and ruin the evening. We have played games that have a mechanism like that and its ruins the evening for us. Now there may be all sorts of reasons for this disparity in perception. If a game went just as expected then the scenario writer proabley doid a poor job. Pick up games can and do (in my opinion) become sterile, by definition the terrain is always "standard" within tight limits and if always using the same armies it soon becomes "same old, same old". Now introducing some random event may change the balance but it is again a matter of taste whether it makes it better, is different "better at any price". The logic and oppions in such matters is of interest to me, even if I don't like them myself. What level of randomness is "interesting" unbalanceing a game completely perhaps one in 10 games is that an acceptable price? I am writing games for a begginer and all too many of my traditional ) scenarios which to me are fairly basic seem to be too comcplex for them. Churning out "You attack the house" smackes of pick up games of which I have long grown bored of. So I am looking at how to write scenarios out of my comfort zone. Many games do seeme to have a theme of randomness as part of the "gamey" side rarther than the simulaton side so I am trying to understand the prefered limits for such an approach as its alien to my own prefrences. Included in the discussion yet again, is how often players meet and are they cognisant of the tactics of the time and familiar with the rules. This may shape the nature of the design including the "added game only randomness". A convention game is not a "proper" wargame to me intersting in some ways perhaps, but no real challenge as the opponets almost invariabley do not know the rules or tactics, so a true clash of wills and expertise is not going to occoure. I had Charles Grants scenario books these suffered from random to the extent thay often moved out of the set of interesting games and as such I soon realiesed thay were a waste of money for me. Again a matter of taste. Just preparing my bacon sannie for breakfast when it ocoured to me, one of the great games in some ways was Stargrunt II but we soon got rid of the melee system. Certainly to us its spread of results was way to wide, one man winning against several was not that rare event so it became tedious, the outcome only very lightly representative of the imput so counter productive at least to some, but perhaps but not to some of this audience?
|
Wolfhag | 06 Jun 2022 8:59 a.m. PST |
I agree with McLaddie here: What do gamers remember? The game that went just as expected, or that surprising attack when all the die rolls went right? That's been my experience in modeling unexpected historical events (not simply random events) that are generated with a random roll of the dice. I also agree with UshCha here: A random dice roll included to simply change the game balance for no logical reason would throw such a game immediately out of the set of interesting games and ruin the evening. We have played games that have a mechanism like that and its ruins the evening for us. A random event with no historical basis simply to "balance" the game is illogical. The small chance and potential of an unexpected but historical event does generate suspense each time the dice are rolled. In my games it is a 5% chance of a SNAFU when shooting (could effect this shot or the next) and the 5% to 75% chance of a ricochet depending on the location hit. In our last game a Tiger II hit an M36 that ricocheted for no damage (lucky roll, 5% chance, a 1 on a D20). Before the Tiger could shoot again the same M36 got off a shot and knocked it out. There is a 5% chance of a Critical Hit that can be the round hit a weak spot so 50% armor strength, cupola hit, turret ring, bow mg or coax hit, storage hit for no damage, etc. No target is 100% safe and no target has a 100% chance of being knocked out when hit. These are the types of events that generate groans from one side and cheers from the other. That's entertainment and historical realism. It's not just random events. There is a reason behind it. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 08 Jun 2022 1:00 a.m. PST |
5% seems a very high proability for an unusual event. Certainly seems too high to be credible. On that basis again as a matter of preference it seems just a factor that has no justification. Why it adds interest escapes me. It's like game of football the ball bursts several times a game. Would that make the game more interesting? It does seem that there is a lot of random events that are massively opverplayed to make the game more "interesting". I do wounder if the games being played are not really stretching the players to their limits and hence the game is too predicatble, so adding random veriety is propping up an uninteresting secenario. Not sure I can ammend my style of scenario to include this sort of randon its too far from my idea of entertainment. I does highlight the need for designers to create what they think is the right game, you can never write for somthing else you, don't have the ability to judge what is ideal for sombody else's taste. |
Wolfhag | 08 Jun 2022 10:52 a.m. PST |
5% seems a very high probability for an unusual event. Certainly seems too high to be credible. On that basis again as a matter of preference it seems just a factor that has no justification. Why it adds interest escapes me. Seriously UshCha? No justification? Since you've never played the game I'll forgive you <grin>. IIRC rounds did misfire, shells got stuck, gunners and crew panicked, orders were missed or misunderstood, loaders occasionally loaded the wrong round, loaders passed out from gases or slipped and dropped rounds while reloading, and on rare occasions rounds exploded in the chamber. These are 1st person AAR's from real crewman, I'm not making it up. I don't think they lied about it. As to the exact frequency they happen is determined by me, the designer, with as much historical authenticity and playability as I can design in. I admit I take some liberty as there is no hard historical data I can find. It's not an unusual or random event. It's an unexpected event that historically happened that may or may not happen in the game. I can't say the 5% is too low or too high. Do you have any historical evidence as to what it should be? I could not find any. I use a D20 so rolling a 1 is 5%. I don't want to use two D10's for a 1-00 result. If there are 100 rounds fired in a game mathematically it will happen 5 times in a 3 hour game requiring 5 additional die rolls. Not exactly overpowering if you review the SNAFU Chart. I'm not trying to create a scientific simulation, it's a game, have fun. Players like it and I've never received any complaints. In real life s--- happens. It does seem that there is a lot of random events that are massively opverplayed to make the game more "interesting". That's something we can agree on. Can you site any examples? Random for randoms sake without a scenario or historical explanation does not make sense unless the designers intention is to unrealistically balance the game. Balance is important in a friendly game but is overall unrealistic, my opinion. However, I've seen players getting a kick out of some completely random event that has no explanation. It's unexpected and entertaining. Have fun! Not sure I can ammend my style of scenario to include this sort of random its too far from my idea of entertainment. You don't have to and I'm not sure of your idea of entertainment is (I'm sure it varies for all of us) but the SNAFU rule creates suspense (fear of the SNAFU) for all players in the game whenever a shot is taken. Players like it, the rule is playable, not over powering and entertaining in addition to having a historical basis. As a designer I like that. On the SNAFU Chart TMP link I use you'll see that most of the results are not overbearing. However, I use a Time Competitive game environment that most players don't understand until they start playing. Seconds count in a 1:1 shootout. It's not an arbitrary rule I made up like unit activations, command points or initiative determination. If you don't believe me ask Otto Carius: "Everything depends on the prompt identification of a dangerous target, usually seconds decide." Otto Carius, from the book "Tigers in the Mud" You are the designer of your game, do it the way you and your players like. That's what I do. It's not something we have to agree on. Wolfhag |
McLaddie | 08 Jun 2022 2:43 p.m. PST |
5% seems a very high probability for an unusual event. Certainly seems too high to be credible. On that basis again as a matter of preference it seems just a factor that has no justification. Why it adds interest escapes me. No Justification? That depends on the event and how many possible being covered by that 5%. Moreover, 5% is the typical margin of error for most statistical analysis… i.e. Wolfhag's statistics or the Army's can be expected to carry a 5% error bar. What do you see as being justified in a wargame? How? It does seem that there is a lot of random events that are massively opverplayed to make the game more "interesting". That depends on the game, what the players consider 'interesting' and why the random events were created. The game Sorry has a lot of random events… is it overplayed? Years of game play suggests no. Saying it is designed for children doesn't change much, perhaps it was a goal of the game designer… and he succeeded. A random dice roll included to simply change the game balance for no logical reason would throw such a game immediately out of the set of interesting games and ruin the evening. I'm not disagreeing, but there are so many assumes and play preferences in that opinion, it is difficult to agree completely. You are assuming the purpose of the change and the logical that *should* have been applied. I have had game evenings ruined because of the why randomness/dice throws are applied in the game system. To come to your conclusions, I would have to know why the designer included that randomness and the logic behind it. Dave B. logic was to have an interesting game. Can't fault him for that, but it wouldn't be my logic. Not sure I can ammend my style of scenario to include this sort of random its too far from my idea of entertainment. I'd play it before coming to that conclusion. Wolfhag's 'randomness' is based on the randomness experienced by tankers during WWII, or close to it. On the other hand, there is no reason you have to ammend your style of scenario or compromise your idea of entertainment. I think the game design issues of randomness, the simulation issues of statistical randomness inherent in such designs and personal preferences in game play and entertainment are getting all mixed up here. A game is designed to produce a particular level/kind of entertainment. As a wargame, meant to simulate. it is also such a product, but it has to technically include randomness which mimic actual randomness in the battlefield environment. It is still for entertainment, but a particular level and kind… There are no rules or ought tos dictating what you like and play, or whether you like one system over another. None whatsoever. On the technical side, the wargame designer has particular goals and it is a technical question as to whether his system and mechanics achieves those goals. UshCha, which are you focusing on in this thread, your preferences vs other preferences or the technical design issues in succeeding with design goals? |
Wolfhag | 09 Jun 2022 6:56 a.m. PST |
I think the game design issues of randomness, the simulation issues of statistical randomness inherent in such designs and personal preferences in game play and entertainment are getting all mixed up here. I was trying to describe that but you did it for me. Thanks. I think what UshCha is driving at is that he would not like the idea of a completely random, unrealistic and unexpected event to to "ruin" the game, I would not either. I think all games use "statistical randomness" to a greater or lesser extent. His game is based on specific tactics and mechanisms that randomness for randomness sake will screw up. It appears he's striving for historical results that unneeded randomness will screw up. Correct me if I made the wrong assumption. An example of statistical randomness in my game is that in the WWII Sherman manual crews were trained to engage a new target 45 degrees off center, traverse, aim and fire in 15 seconds or less. That's my base line. So to determine how long it takes in the game the player rolls a D6. On a 1 it takes 13 seconds, a 2 is 14 seconds, 3-4 15 seconds, 5 16 seconds and a 6 is 17 seconds. An Ace crew is -2 seconds and a poor crew is +4 seconds to the final result, not the die roll. This creates a somewhat realistic Fog of War because when you roll the dice your opponent does not know the results other than 15 seconds give or take a few seconds. To make it even harder to guess the shooting player can decrease the time by 1-4 seconds with an increasing accuracy penalty to reflect a Snap Shot or he could take a few seconds longer for an accuracy bonus (more accurate range estimation). These are what I call "Risk-Reward Decisions." Players need to balance the "speed versus accuracy" problem that real crews were faced with and the player makes the same decisions with the same results game wise. Shooting first is pointless if you miss but if you take too long you are dead before you shoot. Choose wisely. Like Otto Carius said in his book, "seconds count". That's what makes the game Time Competitive. It would be no fun and unrealistic if your opponents knew the exact second you fire, hence the need for statistical randomness. The use of the SNAFU Chart incorporates real historical events on the battlefield that occurred and help in the story line. Some were more common than others which I try to reflect in a 1-00 die roll. I have no real historical data or baseline so it's my decision on how the roll plays out. It's somewhat arbitrary so it's OK to disagree or make your own. If you feel it's needless don't use it. My statistical randomness is based on historical accounts and data. The same can be said for games where you need to roll for unit activation but it's more abstracted and normally with no decision input from the players and can't be considered Time Competitive. So if a unit needed a 1-4 on a D6 to activate and you rolled a 5 or 6 three times in a row you could assume there was something wrong going on and create your own narrative and imagination to say what is wrong. Wolfhag |
McLaddie | 09 Jun 2022 6:51 p.m. PST |
I think what UshCha is driving at is that he would not like the idea of a completely random, unrealistic and unexpected event to to "ruin" the game, I would not either. Wolfhag: Okay, I can see that and certainly agree with the idea. I think all games use "statistical randomness" to a greater or lesser extent. If "statistical randomness" means a D6 has a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a '6', then, yes most all games using some sort of randomizer, die, card or pull chits etc. do [or at least should] pay attention to that sort of analysis. If you mean attempting to have the randomizer model the actual chances of something happening, then no. Few wargames or commercial games do that at all. It sounds like yours does to some extent based on military statistical bases and analysis. Of course, that opinion is more based on what wargame designers don't say about the historical and military basis for their design. For instance, Richard Hasenauer in his brigade Fire & Fury has generic artillery batteries representing all guns. In the the second edition he has several artillery types represented. In both, Richard says the wargame is "historically accurate." I couldn't tell you what that means in game design terms or how he came up with the ranges and hit probabilities and consequent damage for either game. So, I imagine he did some die roll 'statistical analysis' for randomness/game's sake but whether he actually built a base determined by the historical record and such to model that randomness, I have no idea. So, from that decades' long absence of information, I am forced to conclude such analysis wasn't done at all. |
McLaddie | 09 Jun 2022 7:23 p.m. PST |
My statistical randomness is based on historical accounts and data. [Yes, so noted. That is my point about game versus simulation 'randomness]The same can be said for games where you need to roll for unit activation [Can it? Why? What game are you thinking of?] but it's more abstracted and normally with no decision input from the players and can't be considered Time Competitive. Wolfhag: On what basis can it be considered representing actual combat stats? So if a unit needed a 1-4 on a D6 to activate and you rolled a 5 or 6 three times in a row you could assume there was something wrong going on and create your own narrative and imagination to say what is wrong. Yeah, because said gamer rolling those die has NO idea what basis there is for the 1-4 roll in the first place. Like all gamers, they then 'make up some narrative' which probably has nothing to do with the actual history included in the game. It's call rationalizing after the fact and wargamers have become very, very good at it over the decades. It is quite fun, and inevitable when there is no explanation whatsoever. Wargame designers often depend on it to cover the lack of any substantial historical representation to such die rolls. Gamers just make it up… I see this starting way back with Jim Dunnigan's 'Simulation Publications' in the 70s and his classic book "Wargames" [in it's 4th edition] where he discusses wargame 'realism', stating that some wargames have 'more realism' than other wargames but never, ever states where 'realism' in a wargame systems is found or how one would design for it, let alone measure more or less of it. |
UshCha | 10 Jun 2022 1:19 a.m. PST |
Wolfhag, I have shot the odd round at fairs and such, proably more than 20 certainly with friends and not had a missfire. I am stunned if today you would accept a weapon that missfired something like 5 times in an engagement. Troops carry anything upto 500 rounds so a misuire 20 times in a day? I would have thought that would be great cause to get rid of the weapon. The vickers machine gun holds the world recort (still I think) for shooting for 24 hrs continiusly , so 5% failure as a standatd looks somwhat over played and overly random. No problem if that gives you "entertainmemnt" but not for me. We do have random as wepons fire even in research is expressed as a statistic. Even with relatively consistent use of die you gaet statistical variation which can shift the progress of a battle plan. Adding snafue's is uneccessary rules, uses time and in a decent game there should be suffitient errors of judgement under time pressure to make it uneccessary. It really is about taste and I clearly have a complete dislike of it. Post game rationalization of a bad roile seems odd to me, it just what it is. Post game rationalisation is about what I failed to do or did wrong. Interstingly we may be a strange group. Other players. particularly "Freatherstone clone games" types end up chatting about lucky rolls. Our own players about what tactically went right or wrong. Claealy diffrent appoaches. |
Wolfhag | 10 Jun 2022 8:39 a.m. PST |
UshCha, I am stunned if today you would accept a weapon that misfired something like 5 times in an engagement. Troops carry anything up to 500 rounds so a misfire 20 times in a day? I would have thought that would be great cause to get rid of the weapon. I'm stunned that you came to that conclusion!!!!! It's so absolutely ridiculous that I'm surprised you would think that's what I designed into the game. Give me a little credit here dude. Did you read the chart? Let me explain the mechanics which I thought were clear: When rolling to determine a hit roll two D20 dice. One for accuracy/chance to hit and one for SNAFU. If the SNAFU roll is a 1 immediately consult the SNAFU Chart and roll two D10 for a 1-100 result. A Misfire has an 8% chance on the chart. By my math 8% of 5% translates into a 1 in 250 chance, not 5%. That's very clear if you read it. Historically, the drill for a misfire is the gunner reset the firing mechanism and attempt to fire again. In the game this takes 5 seconds and is based on historical and 1st person accounts. After 5 seconds the player attempts to fire again (if he is still alive) with a 50% chance of the round going off normally but he has given his opponent 5 seconds of free action which in a Time Competitive game where seconds count can be deadly. If it fails the second time it needs to be extracted and a new round loaded taking 2x the historical reload time modified by the crew type. So in effect a total misfire where the round needs to be extracted is 1 in 500. Now this is for guns 40mm or greater, NOT for small arms fire. I've been around firearms since I was 10 and did 3 years in a Rifle Company firing all types of small arms. But I'll forgive you in advance for coming to the wrong conclusion <grin>. If you read the chart you'll see very few of the results are catastrophic or overpowering. Players SNAFU Check at the time of firing because that's when things that go wrong will have the most effect. Most of the time it throws off the timing of the shot so players don't get the expected results 100% of the time when they shoot, only 95% of the time. That's my decision and gives the best "feel" for me and is playable so it is somewhat arbitrary and a best guess on the data I have and the limitations of a D20 (minimum 5%). I haven't had any complaints even from former tank crewman but I'm always open to suggestions. The chart is an older one, there have been some minor changes. Now you may reply with, "1 in 500 chance is not worthwhile to introduce into the game as it will rarely occur." I would have concurred but after extensive play testing it seems to occur more than expected. It does not occur each game but in some games it occurred 2-3 times. Again, it's not how often it occurs it is the suspense it creates each time a player rolls the dice. I've seen it on their faces. I call it entertainment, you can call it nonsense. When they SNAFU roll the 1 then they have to roll for the outcome knowing in advance what the chances of different occurrences are. Again, more suspense and dread for the player. I like that. Now you can say it slows down the game but no one has complained and gamers do like the unexpected results as long as there is a reason, justification, or story behind it. If someone does not like the chart make your own. One die roll is not going to overpower the game but can put a kink in even the best tactics. We do have random as wepons fire even in research is expressed as a statistic. Even with relatively consistent use of die you gaet statistical variation which can shift the progress of a battle plan. Adding snafue's is uneccessary rules, uses time and in a decent game there should be suffitient errors of judgement under time pressure to make it uneccessary. OK, I respect that. The SNAFU Chart I use is a technical one focused on weapon and crew performance, not player performance, tactics, decisions or limitations. The system allows players the freedom of action and decision making to take chances and make stupid decisions as it should be. Some decisions may be limited by radio communications or a blind spot. Since the game is not traditional IGYG there are no traditional unit activation rules and all units are considered "active" and observing as they did in real combat. They can react to an enemy threat the second it occurs but in a Time Competitive game orders are not executed immediately and they may be a reaction time delay between the moment a threat enters your LOS, is spotted, orders issued and the crew goes into action. You are not waiting around for your "turn". While this may all sound complicated and time consuming there are no traditional rules to cover initiative determination, unit activations, opportunity fire, spotting, etc because the game does not need them. A Time Competitive game revolves around the timing of a unit to react and execute an order which is somewhat randomized and not entirely predictable to get a close to historical outcome. It's a completely different approach that I like but very few others do until they play the game, that's fine. This means a unit can cancel their current order to react to a new threat in their LOS just as real crews could. You are not limited by activations/turn, command points, initiative, cards, etc. The variable is timing and the unit with the better Situational Awareness/Over Watch with the better crew using the right tactics will generally react quicker and be able to "seize" the initiative to shoot first. If you suppress, flank, ambush, or surprise your opponent you'll most likely be quicker to seize the initiative and shoot first but the small chance of a SNAFU can throw off even the best tactics. Feel free to disagree with me, no problem. I just want to make it clear as to why. You might say the game is like a movie that is based on a true story. The script writer and director (me) used creative license to make it playable, interesting, somewhat unpredictable, suspenseful, intuitive, and entertaining. You can rate it one star or five stars or nominate it for a Golden Raspberry Award. Remember, there is no governing authority that dictates how or what we play. Ideally, we respect others with a differing viewpoint. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 10 Jun 2022 12:26 p.m. PST |
It is taste, If you want the overhead of SNAFU then its OK but it does seem to me to be random by design to "improve player experience". That is what this a thread is about adding random that really is not that well tied to reality but included to "improve the game". You are right it is about what the designer wants in a game and clearly there is no one size fits all. |
McLaddie | 11 Jun 2022 10:18 p.m. PST |
It is taste, If you want the overhead of SNAFU then its OK but it does seem to me to be random by design to "improve player experience". That is what this a thread is about adding random that really is not that well tied to reality but included to "improve the game". UshCha: Well, now that you seemed to have have determined that Wolfhag's efforts at randomness "is not well tied to reality," and only added to provide 'improved player experience,' I am very interested in knowing what you deem as demonstrably 'tied to reality.' This is particularly relevant for this thread if you are identifying which games simply apply randomness to 'improve the game.' It appears what parts of reality are randomized in a system seem to be as important to you as how or why. |
UshCha | 12 Jun 2022 6:30 a.m. PST |
MeLaddie, I expect you are correct, I certainly against random unless it is unavoidable. I would rather have rules to allow players to cause traffic jams, I have fallen down and caused them myself, than throwing to see if one occurs. So you could be right, I am almost paranoid anti-random unless it's absolutely essential. Just taste I guess. |
Pages: 1 2
|