Thursday 2 July 2015

Game Design #44: Random Roundup - Simplicity, Randomness and Other Stuff

The hype surrounding GW's WFB reboot Age of Sigmar has provoked a few thoughts, which perhaps could be expanded into their own topics....

Simple Mechanics, Deep Gameplay
The Age of Sigmar core rules are apparently 4 pages. Players are deriding it for its lack of "crunch" and over simplicity.  Whilst I bet there ends up being plenty of rules clutter (given GW's track record, and the Warmachine vibe I'm getting via the special-rules-in-the-unit-box approach)

I've also been thinking about simplicity in games, due to my recent playing of the PC game World of Tanks. For a videogame it has ultra-simple controls (basically WASD, left click, shift) but it has a very high skill ceiling.  Good players, as part of a 12-man team, can sustain 75% win ratios.  Over 1000s of games.  That's a massive swing, considering the "purple" player is just one of 12 team mates (whose skill may vary wildly from game to game).   The entry level is easy, but it is hard to master.

The "Chess" analogy is a tired one and not so applicable to wargames - but it is the epitome of 'easy to learn, hard to master.'  In a wargame, we have dice which can make the unexpected happen, but there is no "hidden knowledge" or special rules players can "game."  In videogames we call this "metagaming" - gaming an aspect of the rules.  For example, this could be as simple as choosing long-range weapons when you know 90% of maps are open (Mechwarrior) or it could be using a special build or loadout of weapons/armour special attacks (most RPGs). Games like Warmachine and Malifaux rely a bit too much on intimate knowledge of a rather complex game system, and knowing all the "exceptions" to the rule.  Warhammer 40K is heavily dependent on "building" a good army.  In contrast, games Ambush Alley have no unexpected rules, and is more common sense. Interestingly, Infinity bridges both camps - I feel it is severely over-complicated with gear and special rules, but its overarching rule (stay in cover/move from cover to cover) overrules the rest so strongly you still need common sense use of tactics.

The simplicity vs complexity debate is perhaps a bit tired, but  a related question is "when does the metagame become bigger than the game itself" - and when is it desirable? (Warmachine trades on its CCG-style, and Games Workshop naturally encourages army building)

2D6
I've been interested in 2D6 mechanics lately, and the "bell curve" they create.  A lot of game designers seem to be favouring the "buckets of dice" approach lately.  I.e. roll a handful of dice, with 4s,5s and 6s (or often 5s and 6s) scoring hits.  "Modifiers" are created by adding or removing dice to the pool.  This is done I think to primarily avoid modifiers that go "off the dice" i.e. if a 6 is needed to hit, but it has a -1 modifier...   It also allows smaller increments than the 33% jumps of a single d6.  Personally, I like the "neatness" of a d10, but it can have some wild swings.  I've been experimenting with a way to simplify Battletech damage - instead of ticking of 100s of armour and structure boxes you roll 2d6 and it is either stripped of armour, deflects the hit or is blown off.  The 2d6 allows a good balance of predicatability (over the more random d10) whilst still having a 10-point "range" (from 2 to 12).  Math for unit building etc is a royal pain, though.

Possibly worth investigating is a 'bigger' question - when does "luck" become too random, and when is it too predictable? I.e. if I roll a d6 and need a '6' to hit/defend/accomplish anything, the game is rather too random.  You cannot make plans with any certainty - it all comes down to the roll of a dice.  If I attack with the total of 12 d6s and the defender rolls a total of 3d6s, the result is a foregone conclusion.  That's not random enough.

Defensive Ability/Unit Skill
This came from online rumour of the Age of Sigmar rules, and spending time reading through Fistful of ToWsFistful of Tows uses the system now made famous by Flames of War; unit skill not only determines how accurately a unit attacks, but also how hard it is to hit them.  I.e. the better the unit, the better the defensive "saving throw" - any hits against an elite unit are saved on a 3+, but rookies only save on a 6+.  This shows that veterans are better at avoiding damage and taking cover.

Age of Sigmar (apparently) has a "to hit" roll based purely on unit skill. They've done away with the old WS which measured unit skill relative to each other.  So you might have two elite units rolling to hit on a 2+ and absolutely knocking the stuffing out of each other, and two rookie militia units flailing around uselessly trying to get 6s to score a hit.  In reality, the elite units would not necessarily take casualties at a higher rate, as their skill relative to each other is similar and they would have superior defensive skills to compensate.

Perhaps the bigger question is "when should rolls be relative, and when should they be absolute?" and when/where is the time/place to use opposed rolls.

The Trap of Too Many Minis
This comes of looking at my homebrew spaceship rules and deciding how many spaceships would make a decently fast flowing game.  Due to the vector counters, there is a distinct and visible point where the game "bogs" down with too many ships and clutter.    However we all do this.  We get a simple game, lauded for its fast play.  "Play three games in an evening" and all that.  Finally we have a game which we can finish in a gaming session!  But since it plays so  fast, gamers add more and more models.  For example, LOTR:SBG works really well as a skirmish game in the 20-40 mini category.  But I see most games have 50-100 minis - well beyond the "skirmish" level the game was originally aimed at.  The game gets "gluggy" and slows to a crawl - and you're back where you started.   Naturally, gaming companies encourage this (bigger armies = sells more minis*) but I think people naturally do this anyway.  (*Age of Sigmar apparently has no "unit cap" - you can have units of theoretically unlimited size)

Maybe the bigger question here is "how do we curb the tendency of gamers to want to oversize their games beyond which the mechanics are equipped to handle?" or "do we have mechanics in place to adapt to these bigger games?"

14 comments:

  1. Clever gamers soon realise that half their investment in lead was tied up in th rear not doing anything anyway. Or they understand that buying 'on table' artillery models is just stupid anyway...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ironically your post just helped me solve the "should I buy 1:300 artillery even though I doubt I'll ever use it" argument I was just having with myself.

      A new project: 1:300 "private military contractors" operating armoured battalions in a sci fi world (or a third world imagiNation). Using 50s-60s tech instead of the boring 1980s-Cold-War stuff. M103s, IS3s, Conquerers... pah to the T72 vs Abrams... Basically all the cool toys before the technology of vehicles "matured" and we get basically identical vehicles and weapons used by both sides.... I may even include King Tigers etc...

      Delete
  2. Of course now the rumor is that Age of Sigmar is simply an all-in-one box set (more like space hulk) rather than a replacement for Warhammer. I suppose we'll see.

    Regardless, interesting post as always.

    Thanks for posting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that's so, I WILL get it. History suggests all GW's unsupported games (Space Hulk, Blood Bowl, etc) tend to be excellent compared to the popular lines....

      Delete
    2. Yeah, the problem seems to be that those were self-contained games that would need to sell more copies to be successful, rather than being 'supported' by an ever-expanding line of miniatures, books, and other products which GW is then castigated for monetizing. They can't really win.

      Delete
    3. My point is not GW's business practices. It's the fact they can turn out rather good rules for their "specialist" games yet have crap rules for the big two.

      Delete
  3. Nice article! You touched on quite a few of my pet peeves [straight line probabilities and game balance in particular].

    I'll add that when using a 2d6 dice mechanic it helps to control the number of modifiers that any particular roll can benefit from and stay away from large static target numbers. This can lead to 'must takes' and 'silver bullet' unit designs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with the 2d6 comment. I don't have the math handy, but I recall a +2 modifier roughly doubles a 'to hit' chance. The effect of modifiers (presuming a target of say 7 on 2d6) went something like x 1.5, x2, x3, x4, x7, x11, x20 or something like that.

      Delete
    2. Something I don't like about modifiers to curved dice results like 2D6 is that constants like -1 or -2 are different quantities whether they're modifying a number closer to the mean or the extremes.

      Delete
    3. Ah... but that's only if your target numbers change. ;)

      You can avoid that problem altogether if the target numbers remain constant, but compared stats are used for resolution and the methods for the interpretation of the results are dynamic.

      Delete
  4. Something I played recently is called Pulp Alley where everything is a 4+, but increases in skill means rolling bigger dice (D6 > D8 > D10 > D12, etc) as well as rolling more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does anyone play Savage Worlds? AFAIK they were one of the first with the d6, d8, d10 mechanic (to beat 4+) and it seems every new indy pulp game is just Savage Worlds with the numbers filed off....

      Delete
    2. Stargrunt 2 was the first game that I saw that implemented the different dice for skill levels. SG2 was like a thunderbolt to my head after playing 40k. But the 4+ that Savage Worlds added was an excellent idea (which Tomorrow's World, which is basically Stargrunt 3, also implemented). I regret selling Savage Worlds years ago but I'm going to buy the Explorer Edition based on the review here. It sounds like it streamlined all the bits I found clunky years ago. And even when it was clunky it was fun.

      Delete
    3. A bit clunky but fun is a fair description. At $10 it's a rulebook it's a great value toolbox every skirmish gamer should own.

      It actually has quite a few good game mechanics (card activation, hold turns, multiple actions at a penalty, bennies, "raises", better hits doing better damage) and has a lot of combat options to add depth/tactics.

      Delete