Game Design #108: RTS Wisdom (Balance not Boredom, "UI" Rules/Mechanics)

While I enjoyed old skool titles like CoH, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander - I rarely play RTS anymore. Most RTS, the first 1/3 of the game is building up forces, 1/3 is actually fun, fighting, and the last 1/3 is mopping up when once side has obviously won. As a busy dad, a game that's only fun 1/3 of the time isn't really optimal use of my gaming time. My main strategy game is Steel Division (which is more about semi-realistic tactics and eschews base building) and the Total War series (Shogun II = best, fight me).

But as a dad it is my duty to educate my son (9) in gaming genres. So I chose Zero-K - a (free) mash-up of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. My initial impressions is it's a pretty well thought out game - kinda the opposite of the latest Ubi or EA shovelware. Check it out on Steam.

But as I browsed about the game, I came across a few expressions the devs use which caught my imagination. Obviously this won't apply to every genre (especially historical - it's about a sci fi RTS after all!), but their dev blogs have some interesting applications for tabletop gaming.

 

#1. "Buff Strengths, Nerf Weaknesses"

Units need to be balanced, but they don't need to be identical to each other.  That's boring. So rather than nerf good stats until every unit is a carbon copy, they lean into the differences even more.

So if a unit is too strong, instead of nerfing it's strength (say high burst damage) they first look at weaknesses (perhaps it is low defence - can the 'weakness' be made even weaker to even more emphasize the unit's nature as a glasscannon). The unit has been nerfed, but it is even more different than its peers.

Traditional nerfing strength and buffing weaknesses (in areas such as mobility, attack and defence) tends to move units towards a single bland entity. Buffing strengths and nerfing weaknesses instead stretches and emphasizes the differences in those areas. (And, I suspect, may encourage unit variety through more distinct 'counters.')

But what is strength and what is weakness? It's relative. A tank might be fast compared to infantry, but wouldn't we be comparing it to other tanks or units of similar role?

For example in my "Delta Mars" rules I create a baseline human soldier and weapon (rifle) as "average" so I can work around that. A squad machine gunner might be slower, and only fire when stationary but have 3x the firepower dice. It may be then worth 2 normal soldiers.

Another interesting point made was the difference in roles between designer and balancer. The designer looks at the big picture, how units should 'feel' and interact - what tactics should they use? A balancer is about  finer detail - manipulating numbers to make units behave the way they ought.

An interesting distinction when most wargame designers wear both hats.

Finally, sometimes balance fails. Sometimes the core design of a unit is flawed.  The unit needs to be completely reworked and redesigned, not 'balanced.'

 

#2. Fight Your Opponent not the UI (or Rules!)

This seemed timely given my musings on rules like Killwager - in the case of Zero-K they are talking about things like the on-screen information, the game controls, how you interact with the units. The Zero-K controls were the first thing I noticed; simply selecting a clump of units, then dragging your mouse allowed you to "draw" formation - my son and I both said "cool" as we noticed it; so much simple than the usual dozen or so clicks to select and rearrange individual units.

In wargames, it is the physical interface which includes not just the rulebook - unit basing, measuring, dice, terrain etc - even the models themselves. Does anyone remember the old metal Warmachine warjacks which weighed a kilo each?

A player is "fighting the UI" when they have a clear idea of what to do, but the controls (or rules) make it hard for the player to do it.

Aim: A player's ideas should be simple to implement and execute. Remove as much clutter between the player's ideas and the game. Obviously, we can't telepathically move minis, but we shouldn't be paging through the rulebook every 5 seconds, checking a table or a list of a hundred modifiers, or making too many dice rolls to resolve a simple action  - that's a sign of fighting against the rules.  

For example: If you have to roll four separate dice (each with their own modifiers) to resolve a hit, then it's 1/4th the efficiency of a single roll which does the same job. I've also largely moved away from reaction mechanics (Infinity, Tomorrow's War used to be favourites) as I often feel like I am fighting the rules - the reactions are creating too many rules exceptions/confusion and bogging the game down).

Paraphrasing the PC-gamer phrases into wargaming speak:

Game world = units, their stats, status, position and terrain
Ability = actions a unit can take (can be basic like move or shoot, or include spells, jumping, 'special abilities')

UI (Rules/Mechanics) = how a player acts with units, interacts with game world.

In a PC game, the player relies on the UI as he cannot physically interact with the virtual game world or units. It's how he interacts with the game. In wargames, the rules are part of the UI, also defining how a player can physically interact with the units.

So I'd also include the physical models and table as part of the UI - perhaps how you base your models (2" coherency, individual skirmish, in a WFB block of troops) and even the terrain (can you fit that 60mm base model on that 1" wide Necromunda hive ledge).

Go (the boardgame) has an incredibly simple UI/rules. The pieces are easy to use (satisfying too - love that 'click' noise) and manipulate, the squares are distinct, and the rules are simple (there's only 3-4!). The pieces, board and rules fade into the background. In Go you are never fighting the 'UI' - you are fighting your opponent.

Here's some thoughts I've been having as I assemble my 33rd IKEA flat pack...

Are there some wargames where you feel units/factions are needlessly bland and samey? How do you feel about 'buff strength nerf weakness' as a design motto? Will that lead to overly paper-scissors rock gameplay and is that a bad thing? Are there units in wargames which are just broken beyond balancing and need to be completely redesigned? Do wargame designers wear both design and balance hats successfully? Or do they just spend all their time on design?

Are there times you feel like you are fighting the rules? What are indicators of this or particularly common/egregious issues? How can these be mitigated?

Game Design #107: Weird Concepts = Simple Wording

I recently read my daughter The Vagrant. It's pretty weird sci fi for an 11-year-old, where demons have broken through a rift and are kinda possessing/interacting with the human populace, whose empire is led by mysterious angelic beings. 

However. It had short, punchy sentences. Which made it easy to interpret. Kinda like a noir detective novel. Or a comic. Or Lee Childs. 

The short, simple sentences (often quite cleverly chosen) made a difficult book digestible.

So the (perhaps obvious) message here is: The more complex your topic/rules (or unique your mechanics) the simpler your wording and the more illustrations/examples you need.

Here's the rulebook example that made me also think of the topic and prompted this post - I discovered it in my recent exploration of my pdf rules folder:

Killwager. Blomkapfesque sci fi. I loved the idea of it - the rules gave me a feeling that guys who had played Infinity wanted to simplify things, trim out the bloat and make the gameplay flow, with less IGOUGO and more integrated actions. To focus more on gameplay and choices than stats and special rules. My kind of thing. The models are also very cool, if rather pricey for 3D prints.

But it kinda suffered from unclear rules, not helped by renaming common wargaming terms so you had to translate them in your head. Take these passages, which is the very start of the rules:

For a miniature to influence the battlefield it must perform. When a Model performs it may declare Measures and have Measures declared against it. The results of these declarations are called a “performance.” A performing Model may only declare one Measure, or two Measures chained together per performance unless noted.

Each Model may have a maximum of 4 Flow at any time. Flow is a resource. Models spend Flow by declaring Measures. You know how much Flow each opponent’s Model’s have spent. Different Measures spend different amounts of Flow.

First you need to figure out performance = activation, measure = action (not distance), flow = action points....  ^Extra translation stage

....Then grasp how the measures (aka actions) are resolved in a particular order: Automatic -> Direct -> Trained -> Technical. (There's also reactive measures!). Each class of measure (action) has its own sub rules. While there isn't many stats or special rules, there's ~25 actions (measures, I mean!). It certainly needed a lot more illustrations and examples than it contained. Rather like a Steven Eriksen Malazan book, there seemed a kinda assumed familiarity.

The ideas behind Killwager are great. It's certainly different. It's the sort of game where if you are willing to spend time on Discord or watching how-to-play videos, or have an enthusiastic friend to teach you, it's probably great. But the rules should not be reliant on outside sources. As an early adopter, it is very offputting.* Also, paying $35+ AUD for a pdf (which doesn't actually do its job fully) then being asked to pony up for army lists seemed a bit GWesque to me...

*I'm using this as an example, not attacking the author/s - I'd recommend a gander at their latest (free!) rules, BLKOUT (sounds like a musician? like Weeknd!) which has a very tidy layout with rules labelled old-school style like 1.2, 1.3 etc and uses conventionally named Actions, Activations, Initiative etc. It's 100x easier to read and understand - so they obviously have fine tuned things a lot! I wouldn't be surprised if these new rules replaced Killwager altogether.

TL:DR

The post title seems kinda self evident, but the folk who visit this blog seem to be dabblers or even creators of esoteric indie rules and mechanics so I thought it worth highlighting - for example Killwager has great concepts but may not 'stick the landing' or get the widespread play its cool concepts deserve....

Also as a side rant, renaming commonly understood wargaming terms and stats is not creative or innovative, it's f****g annoying.

....Whereas a boring 40K clone like Bolt Action or (surprisingly dense rules) Flames of War needs little explanation/can get away with sub-par examples as I can extrapolate from previous knowledge.

Perhaps as a somewhat isolated gamer in a small town, this is something I notice more than others (as the rulebook is often my first exposure to the game). On the other hand I am an avid PC gamer and tend to also avoid games where you need to spend hours on Youtube to grasp the basic gameplay. (X4: Foundations is an amazing game but the fact is has 120+ keybinds kinda speaks for itself!)

Have you ever come across interesting rules whose rulebook (and layout/explanations/lack thereof) actually was the barrier to playing?

Wargaming Fear + Upcoming Projects

Stress, Fear and Terror

Another topic that interests me is morale, stress and fear.  Most wargames are all about 'kill em all' - morale rules added as an afterthought. Real combat, morale plays a bigger role. And that's fine - we don't want realism if it's boring. If every fight ended after only a few casualties our wargames would hardly be worth setting up!

However I have an ongoing interest in morale rules as I am interested in sci fi horror a la Alien meets the demon possession of the Denzel Washington movie Fallen - where morale plays a strong role. 

I've been experimenting trying to codify 'fear' and stress levels. Here's one attempt:

1 Stress - You have Decent Control

This includes suppressive fire - bullets whistling nearby. A mini is stressed but still has a fair bit of agency. Training is still working.  Perhaps a Willpower roll if you intend to push up into enemy fire/out of cover, but it is possible. Mild -1 debuffs generally, but maybe a mild boost to awareness? The bushes are shaking - do we push on into the raptor enclosure?  

Roll to be allowed to choose what action to do.

2 Fear/Panic - You have Limited Control

This is fear of death, injury - isolation from seeing friends go down. Similar debuffs as 'stressed.' Nearby explosions, flamethrowers can trigger this - and friends being injured or panicking nearby. Maybe pass a Willpower roll to avoid falling back; also triggers some panic responses i.e. fire is spray-n-pray rather than carefully aimed. The T-rex has appeared - do you hold your ground waving the flare or chuck it away and leg it?  

Roll to avoid a forced action?

3 Terror - Fight /Flee/ Freeze / Flop - You have No Control

This is where pure terror sets in. The T-rex has just bitten your friend in half - only yards away.  The zombies have broken through the door and are munching on your room mate. This triggers an automatic response - perhaps randomized - where your mini will freeze in place, flee heedlessly, attack crazily or flop unconscious .   

Roll randomly to get an automatic negative choice.

For horror games, I'm considering a final level - Insanity - triggered by sustained terror - maybe permanent for the rest of the game and could result in catatonic state or even being controlled by enemy players; attacking erstwhile friends in a paranoid frenzy. Their mind is broken.

Gaining/losing fear levels - a mini can jump straight to a higher level instantly; while losing levels is more gradual as it 'calms down.' 

For example, a fear-inducing monster may trigger a Willpower test; a pass means the mini is merely stressed (degrading the impact to the level below) but a fail means the mini is fearful (the fear/panic level).

If next turn the mini is still confronted with the monster, he must roll again. However if the mini manages to retreat, he may attempt to remove a single level if he is not confronted with a stress/fear causing action or opponent his next activation. 

Anyway, the above 3 levels is an example I've used to 'game-ify' some battlefield reactions. I'm not too knowledgable out the topic, apart from skimming some google articles like "The Worm Revisited" and "The Normal Battlefield Reaction" so I'd welcome cool game ideas (or even better articles to reference). Maybe some horror RPGs may prove useful for systems/inspiration?

Led by powerful and malign warlord sorcerers, city-state forces duel for precious Martian resources...*

In the Pipeline

I've got my 15mm out for a "Desert Sci Fi with Mages" - which I originally created as an example last post, but my son is interested in the idea so I'm going to flesh it out into proper rules. He liked the idea of "there are no good guys, everyone is led by a powerful Sith who can face down a mecha 1 on 1."

So naturally he has been pawing through my 15mm boxes making 'setups'...

*Yes, the rubbery brown thing in the back is a fake poop. Maybe it is a sandworm casting full of rare minerals or spice?  9 year olds and their toilet humour...

But what is this in my prep box? Is this 3D printed Battlefleet Gothic cruisers and escorts I see?

Don't expect to see them finished in a hurry - I'm always paralysed by magnetizing - I tend to procrastinate, then not have the right magnets, then double-guess myself with how to best mount them... Currently I'm thinking 'drill all the way through, put a magnet in the middle, and use a staple on the inside of the weapons pods.' But I'll need to stare at them a while first to gee myself up...

In other news I've been doing that DIY classic - building a homebrew generic sci fi skirmish (how original!) that I can use for my kids' Necrounda minis AND incorporate my own disused Infinity models. The interesting bit for me is how much you can simpify/strip it back while retaining a similar 'feel' (actually not hard with Infinity - which has sometimes literally a dozen minor variations on the same special rule!).

The RPG Library

I never play RPGs. There's too much talking and not enough cool toys and pew-pewing swooping cool minis about.  That said, yesterday when looking through my sci fi rules I realise I've got a few:
Scum & Villainy, Blue Planet, Alien, Coriolis, Eclipse Phase, Mindjammer, Traveller, Mothership, Numenera, Rifts, StarswithoutNumber, Those Dark Places, Tales from the Loop. And those are just the ones downloaded on my new computer - quite a few did not come across (I'm pretty sure you can redownload from DriveThruRPG though).

I'm currently skimming through them for inspiration, especially for fear/morale and tech. So far the freebie Eclipse Phase has the most interesting ideas (mostly in the vein of Altered Carbon resleeving/cortical stacks). I don't think any wargame has leant into this very much. Heck, even hacking, drones and e-warfare isn't much of a thing. 

Hmm, maybe a future project.

Game Design #106: Borrowing Vibes

Lately, I've been thinking about game atmosphere, game feel, and background. The things that "set the scene" and make you want to play the game, paint minis and make terrain; as opposed to the game mechanics themselves (which seldom make you want to play a game, but can make you want to quit playing).

There has been a rise of "vibe" games (thanks, Eric Farrington for the term in last post's comments - I'm going to appropriate it!) which are heavy on the atmosphere and light on the actual gameplay. His examples - Turnip 28 - epic kitbashed mutant turnip-headed Napoleonics-meets-100-Years-war has amazing atmosphere and makes me want to reach for the greenstuff and my bitz box. The mechanics are simple, bog standard and mostly are remarkable for cutesily renaming common wargame terms. Another - The Doomed - has groups of sci-fi monster hunters which play scenarios against horrors and rival gangs culminating in a 'boss fight' - epic cool factor; but it's barely a game, mechanically. These vibe games function more as a reason to be creative than a weekly game night staple.

Even though I'd wish more from them mechanically/gameplay-wise (why I'm not playing either) I'm not here to attack these rules (I wish them all the best success); I am interested on how we can easily recreate similar vibes. Or rather, borrow ideas from more creative folk.

Sorcerers are supported by mechs in the world of Delta Mars...
 

Old Ideas, New Games

I mean, GW's juggernaut has done this for years - they have incorporated every piece of pop culture - Space Marines (70s novels), Necrons (Terminator), Tau (Gundam), Tyannids (Alien), Judge Dredd, and space elves, orks and dwarves (Squats I never knew ye) - fused with WW2-meets-fantasy tech. The wargaming juggernaut of the 40K universe is a glorious fusion of blatantly unoriginal ideas. 

You don't need raw creativity and originality, just research skills. Smoosh some ideas and concepts together and make a new "vibe." Shakespeare didn't write anything original.

"The Theme" vs "The Thing"

As distinct from theme, I'd also like to introduce the "the thing" - a gameplay hook or mechanic to differentiate your atmospheric game from the other games. For example, in Necropolis:

The "theme" - undead warbands fighting in the afterlife/a dead world - is strong with lots of modelling and creative opportunities. 

The "thing": Destroyed minis leave 'mana' or spirit essence behind, which can be collected and used to power spells and even bid to control NPC monsters!

It's not just set of rebadged/renamed generic mechanics - it has it's own unique gameplay hook "thing" that fits the theme. It's more than "just vibes" that you can create with just some cool mini pics or art. There's not just style, there's some substance as well.

In practice...

OK, let's put these ideas together. I'm going to "borrow" ideas from elsewhere. I want a strong theme, and a "thing." I don't play RPGs at all, but I do have a pretty good library of pdfs. Bonus points if you can spot my inspiration.

My son loves my 15mm sci fi, but I'm bored of the "Vietnam in space" rules. I'm going science fantasy. So powerful and plentiful magic and psykers. In addition, I have lots of desert terrain in 15mm and a sand table which is cool but never gets enough use. OK, here we go:

The Theme - Creative Appropriation

Amid the barren wastes of Mars, city states are ruled by sorcerers and their dark magics. The vast, barren wastes and deserts are deadly; monsters, feral tribesmen, nomads, powerful psychics, jackalfolk, prawns and salamander aliens dwell in scattered villages and killer robot replicants mine the cave systems below. Water is scarce, oasis rare - rivers nonexistent. The searing wastes are harsh and deadly. Everyone is fighting for survival - either against enemy sorcerers or tribesman who need your water canteen.

OK, we have a distinct theme. Harsh desert world. Sci fi Afghanistan+splash D&D, not Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars.

Lead by a pysker, the troops of the city-state fan out around a remote shack.

The Thing - Unique Gameplay Hook

While psykers are common, they draw from within their own limited focus and energy. Templars (elite stormtroopers) of the sorcerers have limited necomancy or combat spells granted by their dark patrons.

Sorcerers, however, wield almost limitless power, drawn from the life energies of the environment - living things. Apprentice sorcerers ("defilers"), either rogues or apprentices under the guidance of their sorcerer lords, are often seen on the battlefield where they wield terrifying magics.

A sorcerer 'defiles' an AoE area around or adjacent to him; the longer he takes the larger the AoE affected and the more powerful the spell. This defiled ground makes future casting very difficult, and harms both friendly and enemy troops inside the radius at time of casting. 

The thing is the strong, universal use of magic, namely the AoE of malign vampiric magic which harms friends and foes.

What the Gameplay Looks Like (Game Design Criteria) aka "Delta Mars" Rules

The tech is still gritty 1970s Vietnam/Afghanistan-in-space - not much impact of actual tech, but with plentiful D&D-style magic. Sorcerers lead platoons and psykers are attached to fire teams or squads. Sorcerers are like fire support artillery or AFVs in terms of impact capable of almost single-handedly wiping out squads and turning the tide of battle; psykers or templars are more squad level in effect - like a single mortar or MMG which provide an 'edge' to fire teams.

In this harsh world, shooting and melee will be lethal. So high 'to hit' and 'to damage' percentages? However in the wastes there may be little cover; if range are unlimited maybe make a significant penalty beyond 'effective range' to avoid factions trading fire from their baselines?

Basic mechanics need to be quick and simple if we've got lots of magic complicating things; so no complex reaction mechanics beloved of hard sci fi.  Few modifiers. Fire teams use similar weapon types so you can usually do a single 'handful of dice' roll. Game is platoon level/a la 40K; divide into 3-5 man fire teams for activation purposes.

There are frequent terrifying monsters (mostly made from K-Mart dinosaurs and repurposed Tyrannids?) roaming the tabletop; which attack any nearby forces (friend or foe) but can be redirected by wizards. 

The AoE created by mages defiling will be as key gameplay feature; both as 'terrain' to avoid, and decisions (do you draw life from your own troops to boost your magic? Do you risk your sorcerer by moving close to enemies to draw their life force? Do you move your mage from cover to a more fertile area to boost his effectiveness?

TL:DR

A strong theme may not carry a game on its own; does the gameplay support it with a hook, like Necropolis with its collecting mana from fallen fighters to power magic?

You don't have to be original. Shakespeare isn't. 40K certainly isn't. Themes/backgrounds can be borrowed or repurposed - my example theme, for example, rebadged ideas from a 90s D&D supplement - I could have distanced myself further from it if I wasn't trying to make the link obvious. As my old uni professor said - borrow from several sources to show masterful research!

Finally, check your game design actually matches the theme. A game of heroic swordfighting where guns are very lethal will quickly lead to players hiding in corners rather than engaging in valiant duels.

Game Atmosphere, LoTR Rescues and 3D Prints

Whilst we moved in months ago, a barrage of furniture (36 IKEA flat packs!) has dulled my enthusiasm for assembling minis. That said, I did make some progress with some low-hanging fruit; I grabbed some bright green glowy secondhand warriors of the deads off eBay. 

I just did a bit of a darker wash and a white drybrush to make them a bit more subdued and less 'neon.'

This was a quick hour or two of work and +24 brings my 2024 LoTR painted count up to 92. Whilst I already have some 3D printed Black Numenoreans they were kinda weedy so I  replaced them with yet more 3D printed ones.

They were dead easy to paint and as you can see line up OK with the oversized, beefy Victrix vikings aka Dunlendings:....

Given GW doesn't even MAKE Black Numenoreans any more (and they're a pretty core unit!) 3D prints are a no brainer. The beauty of 3D printing is it's also so cheap I can experiment - at a fraction of the price of GW even when you could buy the official sculpts.  I had 6 mounted aka Morgul Knights and 6 foot Numenoreans resin printed professionally for the price of a single box of 4. Anyway, another +12 to bring my LoTR paint count to 104. 

 

Hunt: Showdown. If its atmosphere was any thicker you could cut it with a knife.

Atmosphere in Games

I've been thinking about this a bit of late. Firstly, I've been  a lot of Mechwarrior Online (PC) with my 9 year old. I'd recommend it as good 'old gamer dad' game, as it's pretty slow paced, and customizing (aka min-maxing) your mech is fun for tinkerers. It's a pretty basic kill-em-all arena shooter, but there's a surprising amount of nerds/lore in the chat, and it has inspired a lot of interest in mechs in our house!  However - the Battletech rules are obtuse, antiquated and gluggy and the Alpha Strike rules are unfit for purpose. There are free generic mech wargames around - but we kinda want the 'feel' of Battletech - heat sinks, jumpjets, and the 'official' weaponry - PPCs, gauss, lasers, SRMs. We want to 'feel' Battletech mechs, not use LEGO gundam rules.

It's atmosphere. Lore. World building. It's why I am thinking about printing off Mordhiem rules again, even though it's gameplay is kinda dated. It's the gothic ruins and ratmen, the strong sense of identity and mood. (The PC game Vermintide does this pretty well too, but a tad too violent for my kid!). Mordhiem's strong sense of identity inspires scratch building, customisation and narrative - decades after it was discontinued.

Or why am I considering resurrecting Battlefleet Gothic with 3D prints despite having perfectly serviceable Dropfleet rules and minis? Kilometres-long flying cathederals jumping through demon-haunted hyperspace just makes the latter game seem sterile and generic with it's paint-by-the-numbers factions and world-building.

I am even trying/learning the PC game Hunt:Showdown - in genre I broadly dislike - an extraction based PvP shooter: kinda PubG with extra steps and permadeath/loot loss, so hackers can ruin your day even more - but it drips with atmosphere and has me digging out Wild Weird West miniatures. It's lore and atmosphere makes me want to play and be part of the universe, even if I am not that keen on the 'rules' so to speak.

Generic Mechanics, No Lore....

About ~10-15 years back the indie wargame scene had heaps on "generic/universal wargame rules" - basically a set of mechanics that claimed to allow you to "use any miniatures" to fight anything from Roman Legionaires to Star Wars. Basically, they hung their hat on having cleaner/better mechanics than 40K (admittedly not a difficult bar) and the ability to use 'any miniatures in your collection.'

I can't think of any that stayed around. There was nothing wrong with them - there was just no reason to play them. By catering to everything, and having no set background, lore or atmosphere - they appealed to no one. 

The only game system that did well from this era I reckon was the Song of Blades series. Probably because it had spin-offs that specifically catered to different eras - Napoleonics, fantasy, Arthurian, furry animals a la Redwall, post-apoc, swashbuckling - while the underlying mechanics were similar, each rulebook was actually quite specific and actually did have a distinct atmosphere. The rules themselves were OK but not amazing - interesting activation, swingy combat, use of 101 special rules to actually differentiate models in attempt to 'simplify.' I think I spent more time creating warbands than playing the rules. Rather than being a staple of a gaming session, it enabled my creativity. Which leads me to what I see a fair bit of now...

....Strong Lore, Minimal Mechanics

I think Frostgrave is a good example of this. The rules themselves are pretty meh: packaged as a standalone generic set (like in the earlier era) no one would give them a second glance. However they are packaged with lots of lore and background, successfully bottling some of the Mordhiem lightening (warbands searching for magical artifacts in a ruined city *cough*). The lore and atmosphere carries the rules - they give you a reason to play. Most of the old generic rulesets are probably better rules than Frostgrave - mechanics-wise - but is anyone playing them?

Having a strong background; yet freedom to customise - this attracts the tinkerers, scratchbuilders - those who just want a framework to create. Who don't mind the odd house rule, swingy mechanics or lack of clarity. And there's a fair overlap between those folk and people who buy indie wargames. Those serious about competition and regular games will probably opt for something more popular and commercial.

I wonder if there is a risk in being too specific. I thought Zone Raiders did a great job of making a sci fi skirmish game for those wanting lighter fare than Infinity. It had a strong lore and background - mega cities like from Blame! - but the weapons and gear tended to only come from that setting. A list of generic standard sci-fi weapons would make the rules more adaptable. Because the weapons and gear kinda specifically focussed the game on a niche setting, it may have minimised it's audience? I know it's actually dissuaded me from playing until I get more terrain to match the mega city vibe and paint suitable models.

I've always enjoyed LoTR:SBG. It has very strong lore and background, and not only (a) decent rules simple but some tactics and  (b) rules that match the lore - or at least the heroic action in the movies. Terrain is pretty easy - generic medieval. You can easily adapt non-official minis. 

I wonder if there is another category - overly complex/detailed rules, strong lore - which would include many RPGs along with games like Infinity (which always felt like it was made by a RPGer).

Anyhow, I guess my question I am exploring/googling for the moment is: 

What are wargame rules with strong settings, excellent 'atmosphere'? (Obviously not including the obvious ones like 40K, Battletech, etc)

Maybe there are RPG backgrounds (an area obviously strong on lore) that could be adapted to a wargame?