"Top 5 Scenario Flaws That Slow Down the Game" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Scenario Flaws That Slow Down the Game?

16% of the votes: "long approach marches without decision points"

13%: "rules not suited for size of the scenario"

12%: "complex charts and tables"

11%: "rules which make it difficult to activate troops"

10%: "too many troops on the table"

How about one dice row changing the game so that one side can not win?

I would add,GM does not know the rules, too much time spent looking up rules.

Terry

The question was about scenarios, but many of the answers come out rules. I may not be seeing things the same way many of us do.

Good point, JMcC. I'd generalize it to "a die roll is more important to the result than the player's choices." Weather, reinforcements and bridge detonations are the obvious ones.

Putting a river down the middle of the table.

long approach marches

Oh God yes! Luckily most modern games set the deployment zones so you can get stuck in on turn 2 at the latest.

If you have a 24" range, start 24" apart.

i always thought scenarios complement rules and vice versa.

Points could be awarded for long approaches achieving strategic targets without having to fight before the fracas begins.

I always like for a short game (3 to 4 hours) to start fairly closely in but still allowing some movement around.

If the rules are so complex to require massive tables then are they the right rules for your approach to wargaming.

you choose the rules they dont choose you.

i always thought scenarios complement rules and vice versa.

I agree, but there is no such thing as "rules" and "scenarios".

You really need to define the terms if you want them to be meaningful. I do when I teach classes on wargame design. My defs are not "the" defs, but they allow people to have meaningful discussions without too much ambiguity or too much "that's not a rule, its …".

F'r'ex, "too many tables" could be rules, scenario, or both.

You could always argue that the combat system having too many things going on that are not relevant to advancing the interest points of the scenario is a scenario design problem (picking the wrong rules). But the way I look at a scenario, it should be as independent of the "rules" as possible. The two should only interact in the specification of "artifacts" – units on the board and terrain pieces – which should be easily convertible from system to system. So for me, it would most likely be a rules, not a scenario problem.

For INLGames rules, QILS, instead of having tons of rules and charts, it has a flexible framework that you specify for scenarios.

F'r'ex, There are no "terrain types", but instead a "terrain system". So the "rules" don't have all 126 different types of snow defined, just a way for you to spec out the type of snow you want. This transforms the cognitive load and admin overhead for terrain. Instead of "this is crunchy snow" and "crunchy snow is -2 movement when looked up in the terrain table", the scenario just has "this snow is -2" and you only need to retain that one but for the duration of the game.

If you only have a handful of terrain types (4-8) per scenario, this is pretty easily covered when talking through the scenario prior to play. If you do need all 126 types of snow for your scenario, then you probably will need to write them down and have tables available. This should not be "too much" for the scenario though. If you "need" all 126, then the differences should be relevant to the scenario. Doing things that immerse you in the cognitive space of the scenario doesn't slow the game down – it is the game.