"Mechanics I don’t like Pt1" Topic

I realized there are game mechanics I don't like and my pontificating could be a series.

1) In game currencies

Call them command points, blood tokens, rage points, whatever. Can't we just play the game or do I have to be an accountant too? It pulls me out of the game.

Buckets o' Dice.

It reduces the unpredictability

Buckets O'Dice

Either a gaming leprechaun or a stripper at a gaming convention.

Having to draw cards for permission to perform a specific task. Like turning to face an enemy in your rear.

Special rules for every mini or squad. I don't feel like reading a novel to play a game.

Rather than list all the things I don't like, how about a counterpoint to the OP's complaint

One of my jokes is that board gamers like complicated mechanisms and miniature gamers hate them, so clearly most peoples' mileage varies on the the hat they are wearing

Any mechanism needs to add to the game. So something like rage points needs to accumulate to a point and then you make a decision as to when the critical point is to use them. I think that's a cool mechanism and challenging

The chain of command dice in "Chain of command" is an example. You accumulate points, 6 points gives you a "dice", which you can spend to interrupt your opponent's action, or boost one of your own

John

There always is chess

Rosters. Remove the stand, remove the dead, or mark the unit in some way. Same thing with "lowest strength" "has captured an enemy standard" "has been previously routed" and anything else the rulesmith thinks is cool. Maintaining a history and current strength for a dozen units is something they pay order of battle analysts for. It is work, not fun and anyone expecting me to do it had better pay me in advance.

Game mechanic idea: At start of turn, the active side generates a pool of command dice, the number based on the size of the formation (larger organizations tending to generate more) and the historical efficiency of the staff/skill of the historical general. The number of dice generated per turn will tend to be a scenario constant, so no new calculations are required during play.

On your turn, you may roll as many dice as you please to issue an order, needing a 6+ to succeed. Obviously a single die is unlikely to succeed and six dice are guaranteed not to fail. Once any attempt fails, however, it is considered that the initiative has passed and no more orders are possible. It is also possible to voluntarily cease issuing orders (if all of your troops are in position already). Once your order-issuance phase is over (by choice or not), throw any leftover dice and any which roll a natural 6 carry over to the next turn, the remainder being lost.

jwebster and I might have trouble agreeing on a set of rules. His "adds to the game" strongly resembles what I think of as "gamey"--that is, any decision the wargamer has to make that the historical commander didn't (or couldn't.) High on my list of mechanisms I can live without. Much the same with Eumelus--especially the "leftover dice" business.

I'm with Stryderg on keeping special units and castings to the lowest level compatible with history, and regard every "army book" as further evidence the rules don't belong in the Piepenbunker.

OK, I'll bite, Robert. Do you accept the need for gaming mechanisms to limit the number of things a commander can do in a turn – that is, modelling the pressures of time management and limited information (compared to the helicopter-eye view the gamer, but not the historical counterpart, enjoys)?

If so, what sort of mechanism do you use/prefer?

Thanks for using the word "mechanisms" chaps.
There is a mechanic I dislike. He rebuilt my mini metro engine and left it with an oil leak.

martin

Obviously a single die is unlikely to succeed and six dice are guaranteed not to fail.

Umm, no … It is quite possible to roll 6 dice and not get a single six.

MajorB is quite right of course.

But it's a fair question, Eumeleus. I'm OK with a set number of orders given in a turn, or a die roll to see whether or not they're obeyed. I'm OK with the commander camping out with a particular unit to make sure that one unit does as he wants, at some cost to his overall command abilities. I can live with--a tad reluctantly--the DBA die roll to see how many orders are given. (This last only in very quick-play games: I don't care much for spending two hours driving to the game, four hours in the game and two hours driving home to lose the game with three bad die rolls. I want to lose a four-hour game to my bad decisions.)

I'm generally not OK with 3 dice for I Corps, 5 dice for III Corps and 1 die for the cavalry division. So nearly as I can tell, you either give someone an order or you don't.

And I'm a tad rabid about dice calibrated to the competence of the commander when I'm supposed to be the commander. I'm OK with Napoleonic French giving more orders than, say, pre-reform Allies, but no one seems to stop at that stage: they all want to say "today you're Davout and really smart: lots of dice. But tomorrow you'll be Lefebvre and lucky to get one." Surely one of the points of a game is to see what the wargamer would have done in the situation? And it's not as though certain marshals were deprived of adequate staff, or superior Allied generals got extra ADCs.

Limited information is not the same as time management. The only way I know to duplicate that is to actually limit the information--generally with umpires, though markers will work for some situations, or a trusted opponent.

One mechanism I do like is in a game that uses one D6 for everything.
In combat, a 6 is best. In morale a 6 is a failure.

MajorB, I apologize for my imprecise description of my envisoned mechanism. The idea is to add the results of the rolled dice, trying to obtain a total of 6+. So 2d6 would average 7, 3d6 would average 10.5, etc.

Robert, re limited intelligence I have always assumed that failed "unit activations" in many (most?) cases actually represent instances where the supposed order was never actually ever issued at all. The make-believe me in the battle didn't actually receive the report about the enemy threat to the right flank that the real-life wargamer me looking down on the 28mm terrors could see perfectly well sneaking through the flocking, so the make-believe me didn't actually issue the order that wasn't "activated". I much prefer this "ret-con" explanation to one where my supposed subordinates regularly disobey my orders – I would like to think that even in a fictional wargame universe I would run a tighter ship than that!

In my proposed mechanism, therefore, the use of more dice to attempt an order activation represents the commander actually taking the time to do a personal reconnaissance, dispatching a trusted a.d.c. to do the same and report back, writing out explicit orders and sending them in duplicate, etc.

I completely concur with your annoyance at being penalized in the game because your game "persona" is based on a historically ineffective commander. I'm perfectly capable of making my own blunders, thank you very much…

Thank you, Eumelus. That's clear and defensible. I generally attribute bad activation rolls to "garbled in transmission" or "the messenger never got through" and agree with Mersey that orders to do things outside a unit type's normal range of activities are more prone to not being carried out, and I'd concede that some units or types of units tend to be slow off the mark, so a lot of activation fails are "we were going to do that, General: just needed a little more time."

Of course, a lot of this depends on the scale and period of the game and how much time is represented by a turn.

As regards playing a "historically ineffective commander" I took your proposal that the number of dice be determined by "skill of the historical general" to mean just that. Did I misunderstand?

I agree with the "Davout of the Day" gripe. I'm surprised we still do that. The one exception MAYBE being a game in the classroom to teach the relevant history.

My ultimate Gamey example that RP mentions is SAGA. It's essentially YuGiOh with miniatures.

I'd say there's another exception, Deucy. I meant to mention it but went off on another rant. I can imagine a system in which, say, I take the place of Napoleon, but there are not subordinate persons filling in the place of my corps commanders. In that instance, I could see activation rolls or number of orders given at that level depending on the skill and personality of the Marshal. A classroom game might be a very good choice for that.

Generally, I feel the uncertainty of warfare is better represented by using real people as the subordinate officers, of course. (Bitter memories of long-ago games in which what I felt were very clear orders or warnings were completely disregarded by wing or board commanders.)

Martin,

Metro engines leak oil as standard.
If it's not leaking then there's no oil in it.

B

1.) Anything which produces drastic results from measurements within (or without) millimeters or fractions of an inch. Miniatures (and gamer hands) aren't that precise.

2.) "If then else unless but only" and other convoluted exception language. Okay once or twice, but all the time? No. I want to play a game, not program a computer… or do taxes.

3.) Rules as to numbers of figures to be mounted on a base. Dude, that's my call— not yours.

4.) Anything which increases tedium.

I do (and have) played games with all of the above elements. But I'd rather they weren't there.

A point system. Never liked having to do math to make up a force. Plus, battles should not always be balanced.

I shudder to think that I might not agree on a set of rules with Robert Piepenbrick – I'm sure we could find some accommodation…

So some rules writers have written that the purpose of a mechanism is not to simulate exactly what happened, but to arrive at a result

So an activation failure might represent: leader ignoring orders, terrain not as predicted, order didn't get through, order garbled in transit, radio network jammed, leader indisposed after last night's curry and so on.

Again, modeling shooting by the number of rounds in the magazine most people would regard as silly, we are looking for a simple dice roll that creates a Historically realistic result

Buckets of dice. Annoys me a lot, but it allows for simple buffs by adding more dice, so easy to use in some respects

I'm convinced that most rules writers do no analysis of the probabilities of different outcomes from their mechanisms

Point system – really helpful in scenario planning. Designated attacker should have more points. Another example from chain of command – the amount of support points you get depends on the quality of your force, the scenario and a D6

For points systems that annoy – look no further than Games Workshop or Bolt Action where there are a number of famous examples where the point cost is not a fair representation of the value of the unit

@Parzival "I want to play a game, not program a computer… or do taxes…" That is a great quote. Love it

I'll add a mechanism I dislike. A roll at the beginning to determine troop or commander quality. So if I mess this up (there's lots of precedence) I might as well go home? Unless it doesn't have much impact, in which case why bother

Thanks for all the ideas, guys

John

Saving throws for every single hit, even on open targets. Feels like 2 steps forward then 1 back. Just wastes game time!

@Parzival
I used to be a WRG Ancients tournament player.
Our tournaments at a major con, sometimes lasted all weekend.
So, sometimes on a Thursday night, there would be a "rules seminar". 😄🙄
This is where we would learn about the latest amendments. These not being enough, we would also analyze the latest "letter from Phil Barker", which clarified the …. mess. Naturally, there were contradictions, which were resolved by postmark date.
My very favorite amendment was one that said " Page 6. Paragraph 3 third line. delete "must", insert "cannot".
It dealt with "Bodyguards", which I me used anyway.

Game mechanics which have no overall impact on the game but requires effort is my biggest gripe, Game Mechanics which can be reproduced by a simpler system is my number two gripe.

I'd do my best, jwebster.

If I may? "Gamey." The more elaborate the mechanisms--and command mechanisms seem to be particularly vulnerable--the more you're in danger of saying of a player "he's not particularly good at keeping the fields of fire clear, or keeping a reserve, and the timing of his attacks is a little off, but he's really good at keeping the right cards in his hand, or in working the chit draw system."
"What does that have to do with being a Napoleonic general?"
"Not much: but it has a lot to do with playing Rule System X."

When understanding the game mechanics is more important than understanding period tactics, the rules have trouble.

Yes B, it did leak after the bad mechanic (grrr). Poor old BL.
Although it was an easy to "work on" car.
Bits were cheap too.
The long term proof is that you do not see them on the road any more. Whilst their contemporary Japanese cousins still run on and on.

I have a friend who plays, so maybe he is a game mechanic?

martin

Rather than list all the things I don't like, how about a counterpoint to the OP's complaint

Stay on target! 😀. There will be time for other silly game me mechanics

I really dislike long lists of modifiers. There are more effective ways to present the information.

Top of the list is Chants. Most commonly associated with morale rules, you know the thing. "Friends fails and runs 20yds 17 3/4 inches away-3, unless on a wet Wetness day". Lead by a general unless he is wearing pink on a Saturday +3".
The list goes on endlessly and then it all depends on a die roll. I played such games for years. They were so disconnected from the real world that tossing a coin would be as accurate AND vastly quicker.

Next excessive range bands that make no sense. Probabilities set simply because the designer can't cope with more than D6. Again in many cases the representation of the real world is almost non-existent.

Cards. I have yet to ANY argument that shows card produce any better historic results for any reason. They are mainly a pathetic gimmick. I played an Ariel game where you were dealt a set of Manoeuvres. Somehow the pilot was supposed to forget that he knew all the manoeuvres. There was no means within the card system to account for energy management which MIGHT prevent some manoeuvres occurring in an immediate sequence, but the card were just random, simply a pathetic gimmick and nothing to do with the real world.

Card sub Games, Really? "Monty stops to play whist in the middle of the battle with Rommel".
One quick die and get on with the real job of maneourve and fight within Command and Control restrictions.

Buckets of die obvious waste of time on SOOO many levels.

Excessive Random – I'm playing a game not watching the results of a One Armed Bandit.

Pretending you can make a player Cautions or Rash by changing his communication role. Our best general is just that. You can hamper him by low communications but he still makes sound decisions. Even the premise is false, poor generals often put out too may orders, "Order, counter order creates disorder".

Pretending you can create fog of war by changing the number of orders/rate of maneouver a unit can have. Again not even a credible premmise. If you are unaware of an ambush you carry on as normal, OR you issue more orders to scout out that section if it's a serious risk. Getting writers cramp while issueing orders is not a ceredible representation of fog of war, the responses are not those created by "adjusting order rate". USE MAPS, mark on positions, if you don't trust your opponent why bother playing with him?
Dummy markers work fine for less able players. Erratic orders for uncertainty of the situation? Issuing orders on a bald flat terrain that can be seen for at least a mile in no threat of fog of war. But die rolling systems do not account for the terrain the element is in.

Game designers who seem never to have read a real history book or and I'm not sure this is better or worse, just threw out the one book they read as it did not fit his game ideas.

Money where mouth is- Yes our game had no moral chants, no excessive ranges, NOO CARDS – 1 D20 die and Random effect is not that high and only where absolutely vital. No generals pretending be not what they are. However as the GREAT Barkers said "The delusions of God Kings are not necessarily shared by their subjects". Maps or dummy makers for Fog of war. Read lots of books, ranges correspond to real world data as to the optimum means of employment. 16 years and running.

This is just a quick set to get you started

This thread (and its successor) confirms one thing at least for me – the extreme importance of the "Designer's Notes" section of any rules set. A designer has got to explain _what_ he was trying to simulate and _why_ he made the choices he did. One may not agree (at all), but at least one then knows why the game is structured the way it is, rather than assuming that it is simply a collection of mechanisms :-) that the designer thought were cool!

On "its successor" I complained about "Blinds" and how they were never defined. However they were the core of the rules.

I pretty much echo what UshCha said.

Reading the designer's notes is important because it will tell you the method to his madness, what he wanted to portray/simulate, what he left out, and why. At least it should.

Most important is the overall designer's intent in the game. Consequently, the game should be judged based on whether it fulfills the designer's intent, not your subjective understanding or because he is different than yours.

There are many subjective ways to design a game and dozens of ways to use different types of dice and cards. It comes down to how well the system will trick your mind into a level of believability.

Another factor is that it appears most amateur and professional game designers have very little military experience which is important but not necessarily needed for a good design.

It seems like you are never going to get a consensus agreement on any one type of system.

I've played CoC and What a Tanker. Both are playable. I understand that the idea of the designer is for the player to use the dice and then figure out the best way to utilize them in issuing orders. Fine.

In WAT you can do everything you need to shoot at an opponent but then have multiple turns go by where you "forgot" to shoot because you did roll a specific number.

For CoC, it seems my guys keep forgetting to perform an order I gave them in a previous turn. They can't remember anything. However, the system does present the player with limited options and different tactics he can use each turn and cannot do everything he desires. I think that was the designer's intent and I think he achieved it.

In most games, you need to activate a unit or issue it an order to do something. There are many choices.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag There seems to be a lot of comments here that have little to do with the most basic bits of physics and some what of a distain for folk that read history.

WAT a tanker, a tank simulation that ignores the fact that tanks turn turrets, that is a big bit of VERY BASIC physics but in gushing about some dodgey mechanism you missed the real world bit.

Do you really believe that in the real world soldiers as a matter of course forget their orders? I think not but you seem to be gushing that this is a great pieces of design.
This would be fine for a fantasy game but to me a wargame is about representing at least the very basics of the historical period and some attempt at optimising the system to mirror the choices a commander at whatever level has. Soldiers fogetting orders seems well out of line for such an approach and should be de-merited immediately not given credibilty.

None of you comments here seem to consider that a basis for deciding if a game is historically plausibility but merely on some abstract definition of what you consider entertaining. Which by the way, generally seem to be the utter opposite of what I would call entertaining.

The post is about what you don't like and I pretty much agree with your post. I posted what I don't like, evidently, you could not read into it. In the future, I suggest asking people for clarification before jumping to the wrong conclusion – again.

Do you really believe that in the real world soldiers as a matter of course forget their orders?

LOL! No, only in IGYG type games.

Which by the way, generally seem to be the utter opposite of what I would call entertaining.

Again, I'm glad we disagree on what is entertaining. My god, you don't even like Guinness!

I think not but you seem to be gushing that this is a great pieces of design.

Sorry. It's clear my post was over your head. In the future, I'll try to simplify and be more direct for you.

Soldiers fogetting orders seems well out of line for such an approach and should be de-merited immediately not given credibility.

You missed the fact that I do not like IGYG game mechanics but somehow I think you knew that. For me, it is more like IGUW (I Go U Wait).

Can someone explain to me why you have to issue the same order to a unit turn after turn in an IGYG game? It would seem to me that they keep forgetting but maybe there is some other reason?

You keep talking about real world. What was your real-world military experience? It might help me better understand what you are attempting to communicate.

Wolfhag

"Do you really believe that in the real world soldiers as a matter of course forget their orders?"

Not so much "forget". I remember Phil Barker writing something about the morale of veteran Desert Rat troops in Normandy. After being ordered to do something very risky, they would do it. But _very_ slowly.

I question the whole activation and order type rules. It seems like you're micro-managing your units by having to give them the same order multiple times. When a unit is in a firefight do they need to be reminded to keep shooting at every turn? I think it comes down to design for cause or design for effect.

In some games, the explanation for not activating or obeying an order is basically to use your imagination. Failure to obey an order or activate could be from poor communication or refusal could be that they thought they saw a minefield, sniper, etc. I guess I don't have much of an imagination.

If you are ordered to move from point a to point b that can be from 10-1000m as the commander you'll attempt to accomplish that without further orders or to be reminded. However, any number of events or enemy actions or events can slow you down or stop you. I like to know what they are.

When something non-optimum happens in a game, I think players deserve to have some type of realistic historical reason for it rather than just failing a die roll multiple times. I have seen GMs do a "color commentary" explaining to the player what is happening.

When making contact with the enemy, small units do not normally need an order as they are trained to execute some type of immediate action drill or battle drill. Then the leader (normally) decides to attack, defend, or fall back without needing to talk to his boss. But again, there can be exceptions.

Maybe there should be some other term used rather than order or activate but that seems to be ingrained into the historical miniatures culture.

Wolfhag

None linear ranging. Some designers throw reality to the wind they have Rifle and machine guns as the same effective ranges. Artillery pieces that have little more than tank gun range and it goes on. They call it exponential ranging but it makes the Bambleweenie 47 finite improbability generator look sensible. It distorts time and space and makes a mockery out of being historic. It's dome simply to get toys on the board that should be 10's of kilometers away onto the table so they can sell more toys. Now as a fantasy game I have no problem but being sold as a slice of reality it's a breach of the trade descriptions act.

To be fair the ancients and Napoleonic periods don't seem to fall prey so much, but then their ranges are shorter and to be honest most Napoleonic players have a working knowledge of the period.

And don't get me started on some games representation of a platoon frontage.

The reason we "re-issue" the same order to units across multiple turns is not because the game is "borken". It is because, despite all our protestations to the contrary, we rarely take the role of a general (or more accurately, a single eschelon of command) in our games.

The distance between "Assault the hill" and the specific movement of a dozen or so (stands of) figures comprises several layers of command:

* The Colonel – A Company straight ahead. B Company straight ahead, but lag A Company. C Company swing out a little toward the right flank
* The Captains – How fast? How straight/oblique? What rate of fire?
* The Looies – Avoid obstacles? How? Which platoon takes point? How do we execute sustained fire?
* The NCOs – Sir, we should hold at the treeline until all lthe squads catch up. No, the rough ground with gopher holes is a worse choice than the plowed field right next to it. We do/don't need to move up another X feet to get optimal fires effect.

The time step of your turns should reflect the lowest level dynamic decision making the player needs to make across the span of control they have. That is almost always more granular than the top eschelon of command that is represented in the decision space.

Things like "these guys get a better line of fire a little to the left" and "those guys are going 5" this turn and 6" next instead of the other way around" are sub parts of the top-level order. So the upper level parts of the order will usually remain unchanged across several turns.

If we remove those "micro orders" from the game, to maintain a constant level of realistic representation, we have to replace the options with die rolls (i.e., some random process) to account for the possible variation in the lower-level decisions.

A Realistic General Officer Level Game of Space Hulk:

"Send some Marines to go get the Frazabulator from that Tyrannid infested derelict."

<Wait six hours.>

<Roll 12 dice, look up results across 7 tables.>

"Sir, four of ten Marines were killed. The Frazabulator was broken when they got there, but they retrieved two Zignatz crystals and fried all the eggs … they think."

Personally, I prefer playing all the other bits.

"And I'm a tad rabid about dice calibrated to the competence of the commander when I'm supposed to be the commander. I'm OK with Napoleonic French giving more orders than, say, pre-reform Allies, but no one seems to stop at that stage: they all want to say "today you're Davout and really smart: lots of dice. But tomorrow you'll be Lefebvre and lucky to get one." "

Or there's the Bernadotte option, you get lots of dice but can only use them to write letters explaining why you didn't turn up.

"A Realistic General Officer Level Game of Space Hulk:

"Send some Marines to go get the Frazabulator from that Tyrannid infested derelict."

<Wait six hours.>

<Roll 12 dice, look up results across 7 tables.>

"Sir, four of ten Marines were killed. The Frazabulator was broken when they got there, but they retrieved two Zignatz crystals and fried all the eggs … they think."

Personally, I prefer playing all the other bits."

Which is playing the senior commander on the table, not a general officer. It is worth remembering that in real armies no one commands more than 2 levels down, after that it is always a subordinates responsibility. so if you the player are the senior commander on the table you should only be able to order around those two levels. Napoleonic Divisional commander game, player gets to move brigades or regiments; individual squadrons or battalions are simply part of the whole larger unit so may be in line or column but just play follow my leader, which from what I've read is how it happened.

In SH, there is only one level of command down ;) But I completely agree with your point about span of command.

Question: As I am not a Napoleonics player, do they not usually have a general on the table? For example, at Balaclava, I visualize the top level commander in a tent, at the rear, with maps on a table, receiving runners from the engaged units. I believe Napoleon would generally be in such a position, but a few times (Marengo?) was in the center or front of the formation, thus on the board.

This leads to my theory that span of command in different military situations evolved from spand of situational awareness. Every commander's physical position and view, social and human performance awareness, and knowledge of the adversary give them less and less knowledge to make good decisions, the further those decisions are from that commander's locus in those information spaces.

For example, a general might know that we need to send scouts out wide along the left flank to sight artillery and report back. But they wouldn't know whether or not Alex or Bobby's squad is the right one to go; that would be the their lowest common superior.