"Rules Complexity vs Tactical Decisions and the ..." Topic

…"No Measuring" Wargames

"I've been thinking about simplicity, abstraction and streamlining due to my own homebrew jet rules. I guess the question I've been asking is "where do I sit" and "is abstracting this a good tradeoff? Do I lose too much depth by doing x?"

Personally, in my gaming preferences – I've decided Infinity was too complex, although it has many decisions and depth. I've decided Song of Blades was too shallow. I like ME:SBG level – while not great at anything, it is just simple enough and has just enough decisions/depth.

It's certainly not a crusade to say "simplicity bad" (actually it's the opposite for me) but as usual, question why certain mechanics are used and what the implications are…"

Delta Vector Blog

link

Armand

I love SONG OF BLADES in its variations, great for small skirmishes. But the point, for me, is FUN. Also very good for solo play.

But the tension between accuracy/simulation and fun/game is a permanent one.

But the tension between accuracy/simulation and fun/game is a permanent one.

I disagree.

Accuracy and simplicity of play in rules are not necesasrily contradictory. Level of abastraction (cited in the OP) have a lot to do with that. F'r'ex: Pk = Pd X Pf|d X Ph|f X PK|h My rules can make that four different rolls, or an aggregate probability with just one roll; both are equally as accurate.

With the above example, if our desired interaction includes changing things in the subordinate probabilities independent of each other, it is easier for me to write rules with the four rolls, and adjust each one then roll. That approach is also easier for a player to understand the kill chain, but harder to understand the implications of individual changes. If I do the legwork on my own, it collapes down to a single table lookup and one roll. And all the deltas are on a table in front of the player instead of requireing them to convolute the other three distributions in their head.

I am a big advocate of offloading complexity to rules design and scenario design to facilitate easy and fast play.

The diagram has Go exactly where it needs to be. I always say, "I can teach you to play Go in five minutes, then you can spend the rest of your life learning to play Go."

Thanks

Armand

Is this our equivalent of the hot-crazy matrix?

I mean, it's a scatterplot. I'm not familiar with that one, but, hey, plot whatever you want. I am more used to seeing the "low" values together at the origin, instead of one "low" and one "high". But, you pick your own scale and orientation to tell the right story.

Thanks also…

Armand

There is possibly really a design space which is by definition 3D. Simplicity and complexity of rules are not mutiually exclusive. The right simple rules can easily be farbetter than the often overcomplex ill thought out and variable levels of detail in some rules.

The decisions issue is not so simpley 1 dimentinal. Decision making level is about who is playeing. Chess is ultra simple rules wise but is well beyond the tolerance of some of us but still holds a great attarction for many.

If you have players who are not really that interested in a period you may not want to think that hard. Too many rules to me seem to want to tell players what to do and the game runs on a die. Basically its like some model railways you look but don't touch. They require minimal to no stategic thought to play, so with simple rules you can play and not really pay attention to the game. Certainly that to me is as boreing as it gets.

Keeny's like me want to be engrossed and challenged every second of the game and see the battle as a microcousm of the battles you read about. Like after a cycle ride you should feel tired but elated at the end.

Any rules need to consider their target audiance. Other folk can play one or other of the types but they will not appreciate some of the features.

Thanks also…

Armand

SEVEN REFLECTIONS OF A RED COMMANDER: WHAT I'VE LEARNED FROM PLAYING THE ADVERSARY

link

Armand