"Who do you want your rules optimised for?" Topic

I had an interesting and perhaps a little "frank" discussion about what folk they want their rules optimised for.

I was supprise, I proably should not be we always seem a bit of an outlier.

The gentleman wanted to know how the game played multi player with a few who have no knowledge of the period or rules. My answer (perhaps a little ineligently) "Well not that great, but its never going to be with novices" Apparently this was an outrage and he left immediately.

It did make me think, who do folk want their rules optimised for/

We do train folk, like any sport e.g. football. We have training games. However that for us is not the end; the end is a clash of the experienced, pushed to their very limits (me often beyond) but it's where the real fun is for us.

It did occour to me that some perhaps only ever only play games optimied (or if you like Dummed down) to allow beginners to join in and compete.

It may in such cases be the social side is far more important, so the history, complex understanding of the tactics of the period and how to win in a challenging enviroment are not key drivers for rule selection.

So where do yo sit on the scale? Chess like, simple but effectively inaccessible to beginners, the tactics are far too demanding and end in unbridled slaughter of novices.

Or at the other utterly ridiculus extreeme, Snakes and Ladders where skill is irrelevent.

The Point is at one end it's really only folk of similar ability can win and the inexperienced will be wiped out, not much fun for either side. At the other skill counts for nought so everybody has a chance to win.

It may depend on lots of things, we have being playing the same rules for 15 years but still find fresh challenges, and for us painting does not feature in our hobby other than as tedious chore, that may also affect how and what rules you play. I painting something diffrent is a key aspect of your hobby you outlook on ruls could be wildly diffrent..

I prefer to have games that can be played by a new individual and have them in the game within 10 minutes. A rule set that can be run off a one page QRS is good, a rule set that is one page far superior.

It is easy to scale up complexity and chrome to a basic set of rules, much harder to do the reverse.

If you and your group prefer to play a complex rule set that is dedicated to your preferences fine. I prefer to have something easy in design but challenging on the table and open to new players. I do object to the term "dumbed down" as I find it condescending.

like Fitzovich I want "simple". And I want the rules to focus on the level the players are, with things they are not concerned about or able to influence abstracted (my current bugbear is modern rules where the players are company/battalion commanders who have to decide what round is being fired from each tank gun).

I've written a successful "snakes and ladders" game…. "All True Soldier Gentlemen" looked at the careers of British Army officers in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars (up to six players, takes less than an hour) link

Easy to pick up, playable in a couple of hours, but broadly reflective of history. Must work multiplayer. The social aspect is about half of gaming for me.

Things that the perfect game needs:

1) Playable in two hours
2) Balanced army creation and missions
3) Playable from 1 sheet (2 sides) QRS
4) Fits on a 4x6 or smaller table
5) Has organized play events

I like easy to learn/play rules, playable in 2-3 hours.

Rules should be quick and easy to learn. Sound tactics are another matter, and depending on the period might take considerable experience to get right. It is very important that good tactics in the game be good tactics on the battlefield, and that sound tactics are more important than rules mechanisms.

Another fan of "one page" rules. For a number of years, I was in a small group that met weekly and we tried to have a good proportion of our games played with rules that could fit on an A4 sheet of paper (and be readable by a group whose average age was well in excess of 60!)
I now belong to a bigger group and we play a number of different rule sets, most of which a novice can join in, although they may need some help from more experienced players in their first few games. If the rules are so complex that they exclude a beginner then they are going to put people off and they will never get to a point where they can be involved in a game.

I want relatively simple/easy to pick up set of rules, especially if I am playing a convention game. More complicated rules should be played by like minded friend groups, or the game description should stipulate that the game is for experienced players and/or people who know the rules.

The reason for relative simplicity is that it is very rare for me to play the same period or set of rules two weeks running. Months or years can go by before a period repeats

When you get right down to it, chess is a very simple game and the rules can be put on one sheet. The play is the thing.

Put me in the TSATF/Lion Rampant camp.

Very telling statement from the OP:

Or at the other utterly ridiculus extreeme, Snakes and Ladders where skill is irrelevent.

By your wording, your original, preferred level of gaming, is at the opposite, extreme end of the very same spectrum. LOL!

What prompted this question? Are you finding it difficult to recruit new players for your singular set of game rules that your group have been playing for the past 15 years?

To be honest, the impression I get from your post is that you are of the mindset, "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong, if they don't think like me."

In short, you seem very set in your ways, and if new players do not share your interest in the historical details, and the tactical complexities of your chosen period, they are not really welcome to game with you. Based on your statement to the newbie who asked about it, I, too, would leave for greener, more friendly, pastures. What I heard in your comment to him was, "If you are not an expert in the period and the tactics, you will be thrashed, and we will not be nice about it." Your response to him indicated, to me, that 'Newbies are not really welcome.' That, to me, is your real problem, not the rules chosen, not the period, nor its complex battle tactics. Cheers!

I want mine simple and straight forward. Easy to explain to beginners or someone who has not played the rules before.
No more than five pages max.

I play more than one set of rules, so I'm good with both aspects

One of the best games I've played was chain of command. It's pretty easy to pick up the rules, but if you have no knowledge of WW2 small squad tactics, things are not going to go too well. My troops were massacred.

I have also played rules that were tricky to follow, but the complexity didn't enhance the game, or lead to results that were clearly silly

In a multi player game, perhaps with people who haven't played before, simplicity is King

If you only game a couple of times a year, simple is better

If you game often, a set of rules that merits a lot of study and experience is going to be a long term success

Have had a lot of fun with Lion/Dragon Rampant, Pikemans lament and all their friends and relatives. Simple, inexpensive, clearly written rules

Chess is also a good example. Can pick up the rules quickly, but there is a huge variation in player skill. It's no fun to play against someone knowing that you will be massacred. So a set of wargame rules that allow an experienced player to dominate are no fun unless the experienced player "plays nice"

It's a great question, thank you for asking

John

I'll probably get roasted for this – but I want my games optimized for fun.

There are a lot of ways to make games fun(many decision points, lots of movement, unpredictable outcomes tactically that may or may not change the strategic picture).

There are many more ways to make games not fun.

Stick to the idea of making rules that are fun to play, and a lot of other stuff that you want in your games will probably follow.

UshCha, do you need players to be tactically competent? Or rules experts? The initial post makes no distinction, but I wouldn't say that they're the same thing.

I like easy to grasp, easy to teach and ideally, fairly intuitive to anyone somewhat familiar to the general period/genre being covered. When in doubt I'll take under 4 hours and a plausible feel.

In reverse order -robert piepenbrink
The thing that makes a game interesting is the tactical challenge. The players need to be sufficently capable with the rules (which ae not overly complex and hopefully intuative) that they mean the players can concentrate on the tactics not how far can I move, or spend for five minutes while I read the rules up.

Lucius nobody is going to roast you. We all want fun but there is no usefull definition of fun save you enjoy what you do. Marathon running is somebody's fun but not mine.

jwebster I think you hit it on the head, the times you play count.

79thPA we don't quite have convention gam,es but yes they are a very diffrent animal to a "standard game" for us and yes they have to be very simple both rule and tacticaly.

Sgt Slag – unsure about your comment. If you join a Football club you don't expect to play in the team games till you have trained, Training for begginners is an inherrent part of the club. However folk join to play in the team matches hand have to earn there place, like in Football. To me this is no diffrent in our games so unless kids football is anti-begginers, neither are we.

John Armatys Detail, what is one mans meat is another mans poisen. As Bttalion coimmander you may need to specify what that is (how many HE vs AP) simply as you do not have the trucks to supply anything to anybody. How well do want your game to reflect the real world and in what aspects, to that one there is no one answer.

So some very interesting comments which help. Close on half of the repondents really want pretty much any game they play to be automatically accessable to a beginner both in tactics and rules sets, that is there "standard game" It as you have guessed is not mine, but its interesting that to at least half the reespondents that is important.

It is at least why my "frank" discussion went a bit wrong, we have completely diffrent views about what is "FUN" which is where Lucis's comment is telling.

One page rules, these again to me have always been a failure but again it may be that they work for some.
Just for fun I looked up our definition of dead ground, which is massively oversimplified and it took at least a page.

Now you could say well you just guess but that does not work, the players can have wildly diffrent opinions if an, and use of Lazer pointers has proved to be far too time unfriedly to be practical on complex terrain. So one page rules only work in very simple enviroments OR you need a GM whose rules is law, not a solution that is practical for us.

Ps, we do have a 1 1/2 side QR sheet but it is just tha, not the ruels which need precise definitions, ambiguous rules are the death nell to any game as far as I am concerned.

This is a very enlightening thread.

So these interesting answers begs another rules question, the need for precisely defined victory conditions and what constitutes the end of a game. Again it may well depend on the participants.

To be honest its rate we have defined victory points. We do have objectives, what the sides should aspire to achieve. Clear a choke point so the enemy cannot put direct fire on it. Destroy the enemy convoy or as much as possible with a constraint on losses, at any cost or preserve forces at the expense of damage to said convoy. Again aspirations not precise definitions.

Again the game ends when the participants see the fun has ended. Mopping up if its a forgone conclusion is just no fun so we will call the game of even if its earlier than anticipated. This may not suit Throw die and Kill Stuff types as our games end sometimes before the slaughter begins if by then there is minimal tactical flexibility left to escape the inevitable. hoping for extreme die rolls is for us less interesting than watching paint dry.
Now multi-player games with beginners may be different, are victory conditions important and is "fighting to the last man regardless" a thing for those sorts of games?

'Horses for courses' in terms of preferences on rules complexity, but I'm with Sgt Slag on this one. That's the vibe I'm getting, anyway.

It has nothing to do with 'training rookies' how to war game properly or at varsity level; even the OP admits his reply might have been 'inelegant' – which is a telling admission. No surprise the newcomer left.

For the record, I'm with casual games optimized for narrative, drama, and fun. This is a hobby, after all.

Yes, of course victory conditions are important, as also is a time limit (turns or just reaching the end of available playing time).
I see a lot of rather sneering remarks in UsCha's posts about ‘rookies' and ‘throw die and kill stuff'. With that attitude, it is no wonder some people don't want to play.
A wargame needs to bear some relationship to history (including rewarding historical tactics), offer plenty of player decisions, it needs to engage the players, and it needs to finish in the time available. But most of all, the players need to enjoy the game; rules, scenario design and the way other players play all contribute to that. Nobody wants to play with someone who argues endlessly over rules loopholes; if you find a loophole, resolve it using amicable discussion or a dice roll. Likewise, unless you are playing in a competition, over competitive play is a turn off. Chill out; this is supposed to be a fun hobby.

If you are referring to a figure game then the rules need to be simple enough to be able to be taught to a new player in a single game. The rules need to end within a reasonable time frame, perhaps 2-6 hours, with 4 hours being optimal. The result must give you a clear winner and loser. Finally, if it's a figure game, you need bling. A boardgame can be very different.

Dexter Ward you got the wrong end of the stick, the folk dont want to play with us as we don't take figures of and the scenarios are a challenge to plan and execute.

Begginers need some practice in tactics before taking in a big game. No good having a rules set that is optimised for the correct tactics if the begginer has no idea what they are.

Dexter Ward I have lots of fun in my hobby, I must do we spent close on 2000 hrs writing the rules. You Fun is just diffrent neither batter or worse.

Went for a bike ride today and thought about this thread and novices and how it takes time to train them, particularly ones brought on fantasy WW2.

As an example a novice use to fantasy WW2 said I want to spot into that house 100yds away. It proved impossible to persuade him otherwise until taken to the window and having been shown some houses 100yd away, black windows, no reflection so the glass has no impact and asking him if he would see a man 4 ft behind the window. This was a great training point but alas it is not what you would want to do in the middle of a complex game where you are working as hard as possible to "keep it together". So clearly we have different opinions on what a great game is an that is how it should be. We are not against beginners, some say in teaching beginners you learn something and there is an element of truth in that.

UshCha, it seems your posture is predicated on the assumption that only complex, detailed, and realistic tactical simulations are 'mature' or 'real' war games. And that newcomers require training to war game 'properly'.

Given that real-world combat is unobtainable on the tabletop, and allowing for personal preferences in the level of detail in a rule set, plus the common requirement of some degree of learning curve for any game, I submit that position is inaccurate. Or, dare I say, 'unrealistic'.

Yes, a simple rule set abstracts real world dynamics/elements, (all of them do to some degree or another) but it is no less valid – or inherently less mature – than a complex rule set.

I've played some extremely simple but elegant games; I've also endured ultra-realistic, slow-to-the-point-of-distraction tactical simulations.

Based on your original post, it seems an elitist perspective/attitude made a negative impression on a new gamer who asked a perfectly legit question.

At the end of the day, I think that's a disservice to the person as well as the hobby.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion and preferences, but I submit the entire situation might have been better served were you able to frame your perspective in light of the huge spectrum of games, rule sets, and gamers who enjoy this hobby.

UshCha, you seem to be missing the point that a set of rules can be easy to learn, fun for beginners, and yet reward real world tactics. Chain of Command is a very good example. Fire and Fury is another. To the Strongest another.
None of those rules is complex, because during their long development, the authors spent more time taking stuff out than putting it in. It is much harder to simplify rules than it is to make them more complex, but complexity doesn't give realism, and it certainly doesn't give most people enjoyment. Simple but realistic rules are the optimum for me, and I suspect for most people.

+ 1 Dexter Ward

Another +1 to Dexter Ward.

I'm with Dexter. Rules should be simple. Successful tactical execution should be different. It's a strange case, Charles.

Personally, I see easy to elegant easy to understand wargames rules as superior to complicated rules that are difficult to understand and or play slower.

It's harder to design elegant though.

By "elegant" I mean rules that;
Model significant period factors in a simple, easy to understand way that involves players giving them an enjoyable game.

My definition might not be perfect.

I guess there may be some players enjoy a game that has the details of tanks crossing bridges described.
I don't play with anyone wants that level of detail.
Some people like ASL with it's many special rules and exceptions to special rules altered by other special rules though.

ASL is a good example of rules that are detailed but not realistic. Loads of fiddly rules for MGs breaking down, bore sighting, you name it. But no command and control rules. Any leader can command any squad, and all your squads move where you want. It may be a good game, but it is a poor simulation.

I have wounder why there is this supposed correlation between realism and detail. My experience is that such rules fail generally as they are not well leveled. A classic set I looked at at a show, they then disappeared without a trace, perhaps for good reason. They purported to dealt with Fighting in Built Up Areas. They were a classic case, every known weapon for FBUA but nothing on the 3D nature of a built up area and no command and control.

So where did the idea that detail and realism were correlated, to my mind it was always the opposite. I keep a copy of Cambrai to Sinai 2nd edition T J Hysall & G J Hyland to remind me what a bad set of rules is. Pages and pages of weapons data and no equivalent detail in vital areas such as terrain and command and control, so Detail does not indicate an overall improvement in reality. Too much detail (and there is some preference on the level of detail that is important) can slow the game down reducing its connection with reality as there is no enough bounds to model the relevant phases of a real battle.

What is important, whatever the level of detail is selected, all aspects must be to a similar level of detail, as has been pointed out super detail on weapons and no command and control is not a leveled model, so it is going to have a poor correlation with the real world whatever its level of simplification..

There's a common failing in systems which are designed bottom up. The relative effects of the different aspects are wrong. Another is to entirely miss out something or things which are more significant than those modelled. Whilst fiddling around with all the twiddly bits, the designer forgets something. Too busy thinking about each tree, leaf and bush to think about the shape of the forest.

I tootle with rules just for me and my friends so how I do things doesn't translate to something offered as complete or commercial for others. If I wanted to introduce a rule about crossing a bridge, I'd invent a rule for the scenario we're about to do.
I think were I to do a commercial version, I'd include an appendix of suggested special rule ideas including this sort of thing. You'd have the ideas there if you wanted them but without complicating the rules. Core rules, even.

Andy, we have done a bit of what you suggest with our bulletins, hopefully if life settles we will be putting out some more, all free of course.