"Enough History, Enough Game?" Topic

I have a confession: I write wargames rules for fun.

I'm currently working on a Bronze Age naval set called Brazen Seas, intended to be a fast, simple skirmish game. My little group also regularly uses my SYW rules, A Glorious War, and my Late Antiquity set, Shieldwall. I've written others too, with varying degrees of success.

So while I'm no Daniel Mersey, I suppose I can style myself a rules writer… of sorts.

When I write historical miniature rules, I've come to think of it less as designing mechanics and more as negotiating between history and playability.

For my own group, that negotiation is fairly informal. We already share certain expectations about a period, so the writing tends to be light and iterative. Much of it is simply capturing what we think is important, what level of granularity we enjoy, and what level of complexity we're prepared to tolerate.

My rule of thumb is that if you lean too far towards history, you risk creating a game that bogs down under detail. Lean too far towards playability and you can lose much of the character that attracted you to the period in the first place.

What interests me is that the writing process itself feels like the real balancing act. You're constantly deciding what to compress, what to abstract, and what bits of historical friction should remain because they help define the period. For example, in Shieldwall I use an events deck where unusual occurrences are framed through the superstitions of the age rather than modern explanations.

I'm curious how others approach that balance when writing rules rather than simply playing them.

How much research do you do? How much playtesting? And at what point do you decide you have enough history and enough game?

This is exactly why the games I write rules for are are Science Fiction-themed.

I completely understand your question and personally favor playability over historically-accurate. They're not exactly Napoleonics or Ancients, but both Spearhead and Shipwreck are mechanically simple sets of rules that do an excellent job of presenting their topics while still making two historically different opponents operate differently on the tabletop.

I think about capturing perspective. My Napoleonic rules put you in command of a brigade on the small side to a division in a larger game. I want you thinking and seeing like that officer would have so the rules a structured to have you make the same types of decisions. My WWII skirmish game is about being a platoon commander and the decisions they faced. In both cases, combat is simple and a fair amount is abstracted so you're thinking like a real person in that situation.

I don't consider historical accuracy and fun to be in opposition to each other.

My rule of thumb is that if you lean too far towards history, you risk creating a game that bogs down under detail. Lean too far towards playability and you can lose much of the character that attracted you to the period in the first place.

Completely disagree.

History doesn't intrinsically bog you down in detail. And some games >koff< >koff< >40K< >koff< iMHO are bogged down in detail without any historical leanings.

Likewise, playability (how ever that is defined) doesn't intrinsically require you to … subtract … water down … skip historical accuracy.

Maneovner Group ( WW2 to 2010) took us 200hrs to get to issue 1. Much of this were games and test cases to check that the results were plausible.

Realistic is like waving a red rag to a bull to some folk so we avoid that term as it's too emotive for some folk. If you don't die at the end of a game they sat that is not realistic, each to their own.

We then had correction's and some minor changes to accommodate further research and understanding and make them a bit more credible in edge cases. 16 years latter Issue 2, This incorporated the amendments and and incorporated 16 years of increased understanding gained from gaming and more recent research. Probably only 500 hrs work. The key is to get enough detail to meet your requirements without excessive detail that does not improve the overall result.

In the interim we have concentrated on more army lists. The rules were designed to not need them but most players seem to want them as they don't want to spend the time on research.

Note Maneouvre Grup is aimed at History folk so basically required you to understand how and why things are deployed. If you have no reasonable knowledge you can overtime learn from the rules but that is very slow for most folk. Seeing how its done in the real world speeds up the learning process.

Again not to everyone's cup of tea but we were not aiming for least common denominator rules.

OH yes it was done for fun, we recon we have made about 2p an hour on sales to be honest this was wildly more than we anticipated.

In the rules I have written, I ask a simple question. Does this rule add more to the game than it cost to implement?

I wrote and discarded an ammo tracking rule for my zombie game rules. The cost of tracking or random event was far greater than the value in play.

Maneovner Group ( WW2 to 2010) took us 200hrs to get to issue 1. Much of this were games and test cases to check that the results were plausible.

Realistic is like waving a red rag to a bull to some folk so we avoid that term as it's too emotive for some folk. If you don't die at the end of a game they sat that is not realistic, each to their own.

We then had correction's and some minor changes to accommodate further research and understanding and make them a bit more credible in edge cases. 16 years latter Issue 2, This incorporated the amendments and and incorporated 16 years of increased understanding gained from gaming and more recent research. Probably only 500 hrs work. The key is to get enough detail to meet your requirements without excessive detail that does not improve the overall result.

In the interim we have concentrated on more army lists. The rules were designed to not need them but most players seem to want them as they don't want to spend the time on research.

Note Maneouvre Grup is aimed at History folk so basically required you to understand how and why things are deployed. If you have no reasonable knowledge you can overtime learn from the rules but that is very slow for most folk. Seeing how its done in the real world speeds up the learning process.

Again not to everyone's cup of tea but we were not aiming for least common denominator rules.

OH and yes we do it for fun, but charge a token amount to ensure we only sell wanted copy' not collectors of rules who just get then as they are free.

My rule of thumb is that if you lean too far towards history, you risk creating a game that bogs down under detail. Lean too far towards playability and you can lose much of the character that attracted you to the period in the first place.

Of course it can depending on the level of historical detail really needed, there are tradeoffs on what to historically detail and what to abstract. If it bogs down that's poor game design IMO.

If the game accomplishes what the designer goals then it's just a matter of gamers buying into your ideas and historical concepts.

But since new designs and mechanics seem to be a variation on a previous theme, much of the problem of portraying a "historical" game is that that knowledge widely varies from player to player. Historical can mean different things to different people and there are many wrong perceptions.

For my AFV game I tell players the game is simple to play. Decide what historical tactic you want to use (basically overwatch, react, move or shoot), roll a D6 using your data card to tell you how long the order/command will take to execute. Normally I get blank stares because few people are aware of historical tactics and more detail translates to complication in our mind.

On the positive side, players that were in armor in the military get it right away. Originally, I was using the real historical nomenclature but that was too much and I had to find another way to get players to relate.

For me, a 1:1 "historical" skirmish level game where weapons over 25mm all have the same rate of fire is about as unhistorical as you can get. It is fair and balanced for playability but for some reasons players don't seem to mind but I do.

It seems to me the most popular rules sets that have come out in the last 10 years are more about different ways of varying and parsing the action using dice, cards, etc. than a historical recreation so maybe that's not really in demand.

If you are a commander but you need to roll the dice to see what you can or cannot do in a turn is not very historical but you can use your imagination. There are better ways to interactively parse the action more historically.

How much research do you do? Lots, including the real manuals.

How much playtesting? Never enough but my goal was to have it simple enough for a teenager with no war game experience to play and be competitive. In that pursuit I've succeeded.

And at what point do you decide you have enough history and enough game? I'm past that point, now working on simplifying, creating in game short videos, and flow charting.

Wolfhag

I am, of course, a professional historian by trade, and I want to know and understand as much about an event as I possibly can. (My rule of thumb is that the realty was ALWAYS more complex than the historian says it is. Same appl8es to rules writers.)

But I also want a fast and fun game. And I follow a principle that "it all comes out in the wash." When I was writing BLOODY DAWN (still available at Wargames Vault) I was fiddling with melee rules. The Mexicans mostly had bayonets, the Texans mostly not. But then I discovered that the average Texan was 6" taller than the average soldado. Aha, they cancel and I will ignore both factors. Not from ignorance of history but from game design.

"History is what the present finds useful to remember about the past." Wargaming is the present, and details that slow down the game overmuch are not useful.

I am a shameless modifier. I find a set I like and tweak, sometimes for ease of play and sometimes for what I perceive as accuracy.

"I am a shameless modifier. I find a set I like and tweak, sometimes for ease of play and sometimes for what I perceive as accuracy."

I'm the same. It's a curse, though – especially if you game with others.

There's always the issue you'll alter 'game balance' & tweaks almost always add – never take away – from rules so they grow increasingly complex.

I've broken several sets through endless tweaking.

I am with Etotheipi. Rule complexity has nothing to do with historic realism.

Example: If you accept the assumption that napoleonic cavalry in a fight lost their fighting value similar to an infantry bataillon even if cavalry lost the power of their horses and infantry took more real casualties, infantry and cavalry can be handled in the rules the same. So simple rules, still historical result.

History is the guide and goal…
I cant fight battles in RL so I use games to have aome experience of that, based on what we currently know about the time and place.

It needs to be enjoyable, and playable in a reasonable amount with the spaces and resources I have.

I also am not a fan of much of tbe normal baggage that come with conventional games, so actively work to find what I want to represent and then work out ways to achive that, in a way that feels like then period im looking at.

40K doesn't have anything to do with actual history bogged down or not.

I think both have equal weight. If you remove elements of one in favor of another, one part of the equation is bound to suffer. Realism can easily be served without bogging down players in suffocating mechanics and history can be served without ignoring the game specifics of the period.

I enjoy the Black Powder family of rules for mass battles.
There is no set time or distance calculation for example, but the basic mechanics seem to serve the historical flavor. As far as modifications go, I just tweaked the archery rules in Pike and Shotte to allow closing fire for archers. I'm working on the Sengoku Jidai period when bows and matchlocks
were given equal weight vis a vis training. The solution was to graft the archery rules from Hail Caesar to patch the gap.

Other supplemental rules were cut and pasted to eliminate fiddly details or to support my historical biases. My fun facts can defeat your fun facts sort of thing. Now how do I step down from this soap box….

Back in the 180-90s when I designed a lot of games, I did a lot of research. We tried era specific and covering decades alternatively. Pre gunpowder it was easier to do centuries. Gunpowder saw raid changes in weapons and tactics.

We did ‘Century of Glory' by Xeno Games for the 1800s. It was a 1 to 50 ratio. We also did ‘Glory!' In 1984 as a skirmish system. It covered the 1750-1913 era. We modified it later to do 15mm and used the Cry Havoc maps. Worked well.

Then we went to a 1 to 10/20 troop ratio for the ‘Fire and Discipline' series. We ended u breaking it down into shorter wars/ era covering the Latin American Liberation, Carlist Wars, early 1700s. And other wars. These were often found in the Rime Portal Passages issues n Magweb.
The bed selling rules were ‘Indiana, Colonel's and Emirs' published by me and later Modeler's Mary. Actually nominated for the HG Wells award the same year as Brom's TSATF. With him deservedly winning.
So I did it both ways. The shorter era allowed me to devote more space and effort to army lists.

Maneovner Group ( WW2 to 2010) took us 200hrs to get to issue 1. Much of this were games and test cases to check that the results were plausible.

Realistic is like waving a red rag to a bull to some folk so we avoid that term as it's too emotive for some folk. If you don't die at the end of a game they sat that is not realistic, each to their own.

We then had correction's and some minor changes to accommodate further research and understanding and make them a bit more credible in edge cases. 16 years latter Issue 2, This incorporated the amendments and and incorporated 16 years of increased understanding gained from gaming and more recent research. Probably only 500 hrs work. The key is to get enough detail to meet your requirements without excessive detail that does not improve the overall result.

In the interim we have concentrated on more army lists. The rules were designed to not need them but most players seem to want them as they don't want to spend the time on research.

Note Maneouvre Grup is aimed at History folk so basically required you to understand how and why things are deployed. If you have no reasonable knowledge you can overtime learn from the rules but that is very slow for most folk. Seeing how its done in the real world speeds up the learning process.

Again not to everyone's cup of tea but we were not aiming for least common denominator rules.,

Col Durnford +1 – and I also think you design with the intent of the gamer experience in mind as well. What is the main point are feeling you a gamer to have about the setting, rules and experience? For example, I've done a fair bit of freelance game design, and for one company they wanted a "Trafalgar" experience for players, so they could set up and play fleet battles in the Age of Sail as part of an open campaign system. So the player needs to act the part of a fleet commander -- issuing orders, deciding on strategy and how to maneuver fleets and squadrons. So the game has a more abstract treatment of ship stats, gunnery, etc -- you're not tracking crew factors and guns per broadside.

In contrast, another company wanted a skirmish survivor game in a Terminator type setting. So the rules emphasize individual figures and stats, tactical combat and so on. You can add some additional flavor by adding "attributes" or "classes," food and survival rules since you're grubbing in the ruins to survive and so on.

So it's not just the period or historicity, it's how much of that do you present to interest players and put things in context, what gamer experience are you aiming for, and then what rules vs information balance gets you there.

I always start with an idea. ( There should be a way to have the tension between Steiner and Stransky in my tabletop games). ( Wonder if WAT would work with fighter combat)
If that seems promising then I list what other goals I would want. ( On going campaign without paperwork, solo friendly, scenario generator. Give the player some drama of running a platoon) ( Differentiate not just plane types but model types, wingmen important. Allow player to explore different tactics and formations of WW II).
Playtest and add more cool stuff.
Discuss with playtesters when they don't understand all my cool stuff. Be amazed at the great ideas they have.
Throw out two thirds of all my cool stuff as confusing or not value added. ( Col D).
Hone down on what were the goals of the design. Does it meet the goals?
IS IT FUN?
Play and enjoy it!
If you think others would also like it then publish it and give all the money to charity. You already have the game you want to play. ( Platoon Forward) ( Boom and Zoom)

I think it is much easier to design a complex game then a simple one with great historical flavor.

Joe

My idea: In a 1:1 game, how do you recreate historical accuracy for tactics, initiative, weapons performance, player agency, C&C, damage/causalities and and make it intuitive, playable and fun/entertaining?

How do you balance detail and playability?

- Historical accuracy means translating the manuals and AARs in a way for players to understand the concept and nomenclature. However, that level of detail can be complex.
- Intuitive by using a natural fluid system which everyone can relate to like the OODA Loop which uses fewer rules to parse the action.
- Playable by creating a data card for each unit which guides the player and eliminates multiple modifiers other game have. If done right, it should eliminate any complexity.
- Show difference between crew performance
- Allow play testers agency to come up with ideas. If a tester does not understand a rule I probably need to make changes to it.
- If the system can be played by new gamers with minimal historical knowledge in a shot period of time
-Agency allows the player to react and perform appropriate tactics and orders.
- Playability: The more you need to access the rules in the middle of a game the more complex the game will be. My solution is to use QR codes on the charts to bring up a short video, videos give better explanations.

Most of my time was spend developing the play aids and simplifying the game as much as possible. Many of the "chrome" detail rules are optional. There is a simpler intro version. Some of the best playability ideas came from new players.

The fun/entertaining part is the accurate recreation of the Fog of War (historical interaction between all of the units), player Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions (taking chances for greater reward but with inherent negative results).

Is it fun? For most people. I think the more historical knowledge you have the more you can relate to the system. Overall game play is different and some players don't like different. To keep the details from being too complex there are some charts and minimal record keeping, no getting around it. That's a no go for some people.

Wolfhag

I try and write rules that focus on what the commander of the force represented would/could do. I find this wipes out some periods since I'm not infested in shouting 'Charge' very loudly and then weighing in with a weapon of some sort. i also find it wipes out a lot of the detail that might slow a game down because even today a commander's actual options are a lot more limited than Hollywood might have us believe.