Wednesday, 25 June 2025

Game Design #110: Hidden "Overhead"

I've been busy making MDF terrain. But it isn't a 'fun' project - it's overhead.

Overhead - I've discussed it before - is what you need to play the game. A quick recap:

It can be mental overhead - the requirement to memorize many special rules or complex rule interactions.

It can be time - maybe spent building terrain for example *cough* cough* - or just model requirements - painting 300 rank-and-flank Napoleonics is more onerous than a 10 man skirmish warband. 

It always surprises me when there is some random indie game that requires 100 minis per side. I mean - that's a massive investment in time/money... and you're probably making both armies yourself or relying on one mate...

It can be financial. I'd love to play Adeptus Titanicus but... ....half a $1000 to dip my toe in? Or Necromunda - hundreds of dollars of rulebooks before I even buy a single mini?

It could be space - the game needs a 6x4 table vs a 3x3; or you need to store bespoke terrain.

'Overhead' is my term for the combined cost/barrier to entry. What do you need - mental effort, time, or finances - to start playing?

 ---

What prompted this recent interest in 'overhead' was the game Zone Raiders.

It's not a bad game. It's actually very good - probably the best game I bought in 2023 - it's motivated me to finally get into my MDF terrain pile. It's like a less dense, simpler Infinity with a proper Necromunda-style campaign, set in a very strong background reminiscent of the anime Blame. Nothing new, but sensible modern game design, with great atmosphere. I recommend it!

It has a very strong atmosphere/vibes and background (theme) but no major unique gameplay hook (thing)     .....unless it is the giant artificial space habitat itself - the terrain, immunocytes and constructs that roam it; and natural (or rather unnatural) hazards.

Traversing the terrain is very important - most of your faction can leap, wallrun or grapple/zipline. Weapons are pretty lethal to exposed targets. 

So terrain is important to gameplay.

The background and gameplay is tied to the terrain. Necromunda Matrioshka is a planet sized megastructure with hundred of layers - some levels are hundreds of kilometers deep. Decayed, labyrinthine ruins. Skyscraper sized automatons that rearrange the landscape without apparent purpose. Strange machines pulse with exotic nano emissions. Unchecked automated factories run wild, spewing noxious emissions or vital supplies. Immunocyctes (cyborgs) prowl the ruins and relentlessly hunt down sapient life - like the megastructures' immune system. 

Terrain is very important to atmosphere and background.

Zone Raiders can (and encourages you) to use any random Infinity/Necromunda/40K/sci fi models you have lying around - easy. And you only need a half dozen to a dozen minis. So the mini time/painting cost is low. It's rules are consistent - not super simple, but simpler than Necromunda and Infinity - to which it will likely be compared. So mental cost is average. So far, pretty low overhead.....

....but it's terrain overhead is high.

Missions require: 9 scavenge tokens. 5 objective nodes. 5 cyborg generators. A railcarrier. A nano fabricator. 5 sentry nodes. 4 chemical/thermal hazards, and a radiation hazard.

There is lots of special terrain. Radiation, thermal, and nano hazard clouds. 4 supply caches. 4 data nodes. 2 sentry nodes. A neural scorcher. A nano fabricator. A biomedical reconstructor. A cyro chamber. Quantum anomalies. Scanner towers. 

.....that's a shitton of rather specific scatter terrain you may not feel like making, even if you already have a truckload of Necromunda/Kill Team terrain lying around.  

In addition there are more mundane terrain items; ducts, jump plates, forcefields, explosive containers, ziplines and lift platforms - which you still might not own.

In addition, to represent NPC enemies that may spawn (aka part of the terrain) you need a behemoth (mega cyborg/robot); a half dozen harvesters (normal sized) and half a dozen or so reapers (flying cyborgs). Not everyone owns flying insect cyborgs. So the terrain itself requires more models you need to own and paint.

Infinity is famously demanding for terrain crowded tables - but it's not as specifically demanding as Zone Raiders.  I can use my middle eastern 28mm for Infinity. I don't need to paint special terrain spawned cyborgs or specifically make cyro chambers. The heavy emphasis on leaping, ziplines and wall-running demands verticality as well as line of sight blockers. It requires more specialized terrain than Necromunda or Infinity without the name brand of either.

TL:DR .....So what was the point of this post?

Most indie games rely on interesting background and atmosphere to make a splash. 

Zone Raider's has great atmosphere and background (the star is the megastructure itself) - usually the biggest drawcard for a game; but in this case the cool background may also be its biggest barrier/overhead in the form of specific terrain (besides $90 postage for a physical rulebook but I digress). 

The background may be the barrier as well as the drawcard. 

A more generic, universal ruleset using 40K/Infinity weapons and gear; and allowing a wider range of terrain - rather than being so narrowly focussed on Blame! megacity universe - might have had it be more widely adopted (I don't see much online about it at all).

If you are designing a game - not only do you need to consider making others want to play your game....

...but also what what would prevent others playing your game?

....and, like Zone Raiders - is it an integral part of your game? 

Example: I made a Hot Wheels racing game for my son a while back. What's the biggest overhead here? In this case - not terrain. Or cost (everyone has Hot Wheels lying about). Probably making the templates, as I explained the rules to him in a few minutes and he easily grasped how to play so it wasn't mental effort/complexity.

49 comments:

  1. "A more generic, universal ruleset using 40K/Infinity weapons and gear; and allowing a wider range of terrain" -> has no hooks. It might be functional & streamlined & play well, but it's so generic hardly anyone will even check it out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what most people would say I suspect: - "I don't need another generic sci fi game (rules)" vs "Atmospheric Blame! anime megacity! (background)"

      But on the other hand, what if the atmosphere/background was also the (terrain, in this example) barrier that prevents people playing?

      Trench Crusade is atmospheric but does not create the same barrier (i.e. trenches vs specific sci fi terrain)

      Or does a background have to be bizarre/extreme like Turnip28 people push past it anyway (the 'fetish' end of wargaming?) :-P

      I wonder if simply adding in some recognizably generic sci fi weapons/gear/missions would have allowed wider adoption whilst retaining the atmosphere? There are a few generic missions but they tend towards the 'do x with this special terrain piece.'

      -eM

      Delete
    2. The One Page Rules are an example of a successful game that allows using GW miniatures without any other hooks than simplifying the convoluted GW games. It does seem to work for them. As I was thinking about getting into Necromunda, only to see the "overhead" of all the books needed, I thought about the OPR alternative "Gang Wars - Grimdark Future Firefight Expansion" which is only five bucks.

      Delete
    3. "The One Page Rules are an example of a successful game... without any other hooks than simplifying the convoluted GW games"

      -What made One Page so big? I mean there are 101 'better 40K' games and I reckon half the folk interested in wargame design started out homebrewing a 'better 40K.' My 14 year old self discovered freewargamesrules website or whatever it was for that very reason.

      -eM

      Delete
    4. "As I was thinking about getting into Necromunda, only to see the "overhead" of all the books needed..."

      This is literally what triggered my latest project.

      My daughter bought an Escher gang - I saw the rulebook(s) cost and noped out. She enjoyed Blame! ....so I bought Zone Raiders and dug out some unpainted Infinity to oppose her.

      I love ME:SBG but I'm very scared the new edition is going the Necromunda/codex route where you need many books to play.
      ...given I have ALL the LoTR armies.... it could be quite pricey...

      ...so I doubled down and am buying all the books for the old edition for 1/4 price...

      -eM

      Delete
    5. That is a good question. I can only offer my own perspective and speculate on why they are so successful. I was initially drawn to the rules due to them really fitting on one page. I thought that this must be an impressive feat to distill the 40k rules to just one page. Unfortunately, for my RPG-influenced brain, the rules were just bland and boring. Therefore, I never tried them. Years later I was totally surprised how many PDFs they had on offer on Wargamevault. You could basically play an alternative version of any GW system.

      Here are a few reasons on why I think that they are successful:
      1. They started at the right time when a lot of GW customers were unhappy with the GW rules (there are always quite a lot of them, but they must have hit a sweet spot).
      2. They took the step from fan project to product and further developed and expanded their product catalog
      3. They offer
      a. elegant rules which are not just a carbon copy of GW mechanisms
      b. high quality PDFs with good structure
      c. easy access to rules
      4. They have a good business model with free basic rules and advanced rules that you need to pay for
      5. They are moving away from just being a GW copy with their own miniature range (connection to 3D-print community) and lore.
      6. They developed an intimate connection to their customer base (inclusion of feedback)

      So, they avoid most of the pitfalls where other GW clones fail:
      • No longterm engagement
      • Bad distribution and presentation
      • No own identity

      Delete
    6. “This is literally what triggered my latest project.

      My daughter bought an Escher gang - I saw the rulebook(s) cost and noped out. She enjoyed Blame! ....so I bought Zone Raiders and dug out some unpainted Infinity to oppose her.”

      I love the idea of Necromunda (a narrative campaign in the 40k universe) but the execution is lacking. On the positive side, the miniatures are cheap by GW standards and you don´t need many. They also look interesting and seem like fun to build and paint. If I only had to buy the rulebook, I would be fine, but you also must buy some kind of codex FOR EACH gang for the full experience which is just as expensive as the gang box itself. I also read that full rules are scattered across several books (e.g. the core rule book, campaign books, etc.). Also, for some reason there is no cheap starter box like the ones for 40k or Kill Team. The starter box cost nearly the same as the deluxe starter box of 40k. Maybe I will buy some of these miniatures and use the Gang Wars rules from OPR or something from the Nordic Weasel Games catalogue. This would reduce the financial overhead.

      The other overhead that I see for Necromunda is specialized terrain. You need a lot of buildings, and it seems like they should contain multiple playable floors. This means that I either must buy expensive terrain from GW or look elsewhere (MDF, 3D-Print).


      “I love ME:SBG but I'm very scared the new edition is going the Necromunda/codex route where you need many books to play.
      ...given I have ALL the LoTR armies.... it could be quite pricey...

      ...so I doubled down and am buying all the books for the old edition for 1/4 price...”

      I got interested into ME:SBG due to your positive review of the game, but I was put off by the apparent rules creep in newer editions and the high price point of rules and army books.

      Delete
    7. "I got interested into ME:SBG due to your positive review of the game, but I was put off by the apparent rules creep in newer editions and the high price point of rules and army books."

      Let me be that voice whispering "you need more minis and games"... here's why:

      While I felt there was rules creep; it is VERY minimal compared to other GW games and tends to be cinematic 'fluff' allowing you to mimic the books/movies with more(needless) accuracy - which you can ignore. The newest version removes some of them anyway. The core game is unchanged from 2001.

      Unless you/your mates MUST have the new edition, this is the BEST time to get into it - get the older edition!

      Which older edition?
      You need a rulebook (one with gandalf the white on the front) and your choice of Armies of LoTR or Armies of the Hobbit. They should cost ~$15 USD ea used. Maybe toss in Battle Companies for some LOTR-Mordhiem 15v15 warband action. So $30-45 max.

      If you are willing to use pdfs and google a bit, everything is 'free.' ;-)

      Also everyone is selling their spare Rohan and Hill Tribes from the new starter for very cheap. So if you want to relive the Ride of the Rohirrim, now is the time!

      3D printing is VERY good and prolific and I use it for heroes and special units which GW price by their points value, but to a 3D printer it is just another mini...

      MESBG is GW's best game. (Sorry Battlefleet Gothic)
      It is very recognizable and attractive to newcomers. It's core is simple, quick and familiar; and matches the feel (heroic combat) of the movies. It's surprisingly tactical. It's skirmish but scales from 10 per side to 50 per side.

      My kids easily grasped it, and it'd be my intro game for new gamers - just avoid using fancy heroes at first which are kinda like light RPG characters.

      -eM

      Delete
    8. I am already convinced that ME:SBG would be an appealing project. Unfortunately, I have too many already in the pipeline. My 15mm WW2 project alone will take years to finish. In addition, I am currently overflowing with ideas to create old school 40k armies for 2nd edition with a strong over the top 80s heavy metal vibe. I never enjoyed the grimdark aspect of 40k, but the over the top craziness of the setting and figures. There are also some 28mm WW2 miniatures waiting for paint, as well as Malifaux and Infinity miniatures.

      Delete
    9. @Vader - my advice would be to thin the herd. Pick 15mm or 28mm WW2. Sell off what you can. Pick one thing that you can 'finish' and just focus on that. Then move on the next. Purging the pile of shame makes it a lot easier to enjoy what you choose to keep.

      I cut my hobby inventory a lot over the years, undoing much of the buying, and just keeping a core of the things I enjoy most. I should probably do another purge this summer. It's really freeing.

      - GG

      Delete
    10. @GG - I already did a lot of thinning in the past (with a few regrets) and was already thinking about selling the 28mm WW2 stuff. I also have a lot of 1/72 stuff for WW2 due to the Italeri Battle Sets which urged me to buy them. It will be hard to get rid of them. I also thought of getting rid of Malifaux and Infinity as the models are so fidly to build. Then, I could throw all the money at GW and use their awesome minis for older GW systems (2nd Edition 40k) or 3rd party alternatives.

      Delete
    11. Oh, I get it, but I surely wouldn't keep 15mm, 28mm, and 1/72 scale WW2. My group dabbled with Flames before going back to 40k, missed the whole 28mm thing; while 1/72 was always just the poor man's alternative to 1/35 scale modeling. I always liked how Flames looked on the tabletop, and the cost of the 3rd party stuff was very reasonable. But even then, I kept thinking I wanted to go back to hex-and-counter. LOL

      I only have a little 1E Malifaux, never got into the plastics, and it's fine for what it is. I really should unwind more of that, as I hardly play it now. OTOH, it's such a small amount of stuff, it's not really a problem to hold.

      Never got into Infinity, but if you find the minis fiddly now, they're only going to be that much harder to build as you get older, your eyesight dims, and your dexterity suffers. What was easy to build as a teen or young adult gets much harder when you're middle-aged or old.

      My biggest issue with new GW is scale creep, because I'm like you with a lot of RT/2E era minis. The latest minis are just HUGE and have different weapons designs, so they don't match at all. Quite frankly, I'd be happiest to just play my RT/2E minis under 40k5 rules and the 3E rulebook lists.

      - GG

      Delete
    12. @GG – You´re right. My WW2 miniatures collection is the easiest target for thinning. The 1/72 miniatures should be the easiest to part with. The 28mm ones are harder to get rid of as they look very good and you can play the most popular WW2 tabletop wargame with them. I will keep the 15mm miniatures as I love tanks and you can field quite a few of them in this scale without crowding the table.

      Regarding Malifaux: maybe I keep them as they don´t take up much space. Everything should easily fit into a shoe box. However, I will not buy any new ones.

      Regarding Infinity: in addition to being hard to assemble, they are also metal miniatures. I am not opposed to them in principle but prefer plastic as they are often easier to assemble.

      Regarding GW miniatures and scale creep: it´s not only that the new Space Marines are much larger than the old ones. Within the current range, the scale is all over the place. The biggest ones are the Primaris Space Marines. Next come the new Emperor´s Children CSM. They are bigger than any other CSM, but still smaller than Primaris. The CSM themselves are bigger than “Firstborn” SM but smaller than then the EC. Even Horus Heresy SM are of different sizes depending on the Power Armor Version that they are wearing, e.g. MK VI are larger than MK IV. The easiest solution to this problem is to just ignore the scale differences and live with them.

      Delete
  2. I personally think indie games can only make it today if they have great visuals and are adopted early on by creative hobbyists with a strong social media presence. That's how Trench Crusade & Turnip28 managed to gathet a following. Strong rules in themselves are not enough, hardly anyone seems to care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect you are right.

      Having good social media presence (free advertising) help something succeed seems hardly revolutionary. And the most popular AAA games seldom have AAA rules and rely more on background.

      But you made wonder.

      I'm kinda curious now about what a game needs to succeed. What is 'success?' Is it lots of folk playing it? Or a fancy publication?

      Frostgrave/Stargrave
      OnePage Rules
      Gaslands
      Lion Rampant etc
      Nordic Weasel
      ...or just first page on wargamesvault?

      If its just getting published, the Osprey Ragnarok rules got a sequel yet I've never heard/seen anyone playing it online.

      I also wonder if online presence is a true indicator of success? In the PC game War Thunder, there is two modes; arcade and realistic. Online, 99% of videos/media refer to realistic mode. However arcade is 3x more popular. The realistic folk are more invested in the 'out of game' experience. The arcade guys are too busy pew pewing.

      Maybe some games are more focussed on the 'out of game' hobby/background experience? Like say Turnip28 etc? I mean it makes a cool Youtube modelling video but is it actually being heavily played.

      -eM

      Delete
    2. Mmm, yes, what is "success"? Getting your game published, especially through a publisher, is certainly a success. But I tend to view a successful game as one, or both, of two things: introducing concepts or gamey ways of doing things that are picked up by other designers (Malifaux leading the way on using cards for example), and/or actually being played by a sizeable number of people in various places over a longer period (Gaslands, or Frostgrave for example). Some games achieve both.

      Maybe there is a third form of success in creating a highly innovative game that, while it isn't played a lot or influencing many other designers, still gains critical recognition. Rogue Planet would be an example of one of those.

      Delete
    3. As for Turnip28, it is certainly played, and has semi-regular events in the UK & Germany for example. There's no real way of knowing how often it's played of course, but there's absolutely an active player base. Probably more in Europe and the UK, where miniature gaming happens less in shops (which might not allow it because there's no product to sell) than in the US.

      I do think all the cool modelling & kitbashing for it on internet display do a lot to draw in players. Actually I think this is equally true for Games Workshop stuff, and something a game like Warmachine failed to achieve. Probably not the only reason for its much reduced player base over the years, though definitely part of it.

      Delete
    4. "...cool modelling & kitbashing.... ....something a game like Warmachine failed to achieve. Probably not the only reason for its much reduced player base over the years, though definitely part of it."

      Whilst I own quite a few factions worth and like the models, I personally was turned off Warmachine by its overly competitive focus. "Play like you've got a pair" seemed to be largely interpreted as "feel free to be an arsehole and gank new players with unexpected rules combos" which hardly seems a recipe for growth.

      Actually did see more unpainted metal FOTM armies than 40K, so there's that. I think they lost their volunteer program too, as there used to be a pretty energetic support/tournaments.

      Like X-Wing, there seemed to be a pretty spectacular fall from grace. Think they both shared a change of edition/rules & product line revamp; and were unfortunate as it happened at a time GW seemed to "get their act together" a bit?

      -eM

      Delete
    5. My feeling is Warmachine had a long period of first stagnation and then slow decline, followed by a final collapse. The failure of the new edition probably was just the final nail in the coffin. Personally I never played it heavily. I bought an early Cryx starter set & then some models from time to time, but as GW and the rest of the world moved on to plastics & resin and I got more & more into kitbashing I lost interest in the miniatures, which were pretty much all metal. And that is just a bitch to work with if you want to cut & paste minis. The competitive atmosphere also failed to engage me, buying a fluffy cool miniatures & stuff oriented player more than someone interested in rules mastery.

      Delete
    6. Regarding Warmachine, in the most recent report from icv2 they made on the top 10 list of best selling minis games, ahead of games like infinity, Malifaux or SW Shatterpoint. Not bad for a dead game. There are tons of tournaments happening everywhere (just check Longshanks), great support for casual play with narrative scenarios and a campaign, new models and factions released constantly and a new 2p starter set.
      I say, not bad for a "failed" game.
      Emanuel

      Delete
    7. Regarding Warmachine, in the most recent report from icv2 they made on the top 10 list of best selling minis games.... not bad for a "failed" game.

      ^^ Perhaps it has just found its true level? I remember it (and X-Wing) both eclipsing 40K for a year or two each but they have largely disappeared from my view... ..maybe they were just artificially boosted waaaay beyond their level by 40K discontent?

      -eM

      Delete
  3. My takeaway here is that indie games need a couple generic scenarios where the game can be enjoyed with minimal investment and create an appetite for getting into the "full" experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's basically what they already do, with small forces and small footprints. Even GW does this by making their skirmish game forces feed directly into the main games as a proper gateway should.

      - GG

      Delete
  4. Historical games seem to have a very low overhead as you can use your miniatures for a lot of games in the same epoch (basing could be an issue). In addition, you often don´t need a lot of elaborate terrain. You could get away with just a few hills and woods for nearly anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends on the period/ruleset.

      Napoleonics in general have a huge barrier to entry, even if you can "amortize" your army for several rulesets. Few people but diehard grognards will even collect and paint such an army.

      On the other hand, WW2 skirmish probably has a low barrier to entry, since it's easy to own and paint a bunch of soldiers for it.

      Generic fantasy/scifi has an even lower barrier to entry (but then it's not historical).

      Delete
    2. I agree that some historical games have a huge overhead (or barrier of entry) due to the number of miniatures that need to be painted to play the game. Therefore, I would never play a historic mass battle game in 28mm (this also applies to WHFB). There are enough alternative miniatures though in smaller scales which should reduce the overhead. In addition, it seems like there is a skirmish game for nearly every period that can be played in the beginning with just one box of 28mm miniatures (e.g. Sharp Practice for Napoleonics).

      Delete
    3. Napoleonics and previous era historical have low cost because you just play with flagged blocks. It's kinda silly to do individual soldiers when they are drilled mass formations.

      - GG

      Delete
    4. @GG: I agree. I would always prefer to play something like Command and Colours Napoleonics than preparing a Napoleonics army for tabletop wargaming due to not loosing much by the counter or block abstraction of the soldiers.

      Delete
    5. Flagged blocks is not a miniatures game though... I think Napokeonics have the *highest* barrier to entry, because it requires tons of troops which require very repetitive painting, which most people are unwilling to do (batch painting is a huge motivation killer for casual gamers). Playing with wooden blocks is perfectly fine, but that's not a miniatures wargame, which is what I think we were discussing here.

      Also, when people say "Napoleonics" they generally refer to mass battles, not skirmish games ;)

      Delete
    6. When I think of Napos I think of the way the Perry Brothers do it, and they are hardcore historical gamers with enough "street cred" -- but how many others can build such huge & repetitive 28mm armies?

      Delete
    7. It's a fool's errand to try and play something like Waterloo with miniatures when you'd need a couple hundred THOUSAND figures to match the actual count. Even if you were to have 1/100 figure ratio, that's still a 2,000+ figures.

      It's great that the Perry Bros like to push massed 28mm Napoleonics from a hobby and modeling perspective, but it's silly from a wargaming perspective. And 'silly' is me being extremely charitable.

      The idea of individual figures is even dumber when looking at Asian (Chinese) battles when we look back at the Chinese Warring States period culminating in the unification of China under Qin Shi Huang in 221 BC. The Qin army numbered some 1.2 to 1.5 MILLION troops, and they mobilized campaign forces of 200,000 to 600,000 soldiers, with the vast support that such a huge force entails. To reiterate, this was 2,250 years ago, when the combined population of China was far smaller than it is today. Chinese historical warfare is on a scale literally an order of magnitude greater than anything in Europe. It's simply not rational to try and wargame such a thing with individual figures, but instead to abstract deeply.

      Flagged blocks for mass infantry is BETTER than individual miniatures. Lower cost, easier setup, better flow, better ground scale, etc, etc. A few dozen blocks work great, which is why they are the traditional approach.

      - GG

      Delete
    8. To summarize, it is not recommended to play mass battles without heavy abstraction of miniature to actual soldier ratio. The barrier of entry (or overhead) is so high that only borderline insane people play such mass battles in 28mm. Smale scale miniatures, blocks or counters are preferable.

      Delete
    9. It might be a fool's errand, but it's how Napoleonics with miniatures are played. A huge barrier to entry.

      All of the alternatives you propose are not tabletop miniatures wargames, so as reasonable as they are, they are outside the scope. It's as if I proposed a computer wargame -- makes a lot of sense, but it's not tabletop...

      Delete
    10. Dude, just take the L. Napoleonics wargames were played with blocks (then counters) LONG before miniatures were a thing, much less miniatures tabletop wargaming. The world of gaming and even wargaming is far larger than the tabletop miniature wargaming niche.

      Frankly, it's, well, stupid to pretend that TTMWG is somehow the be-all, end-all of wargaming. It's also, well, stupid to think that the scope should be limited to TTMWG, especially when block / counter is the superior, natural system when one wants to simulate actual generalship at the high command level. It's far better to consider what the game is, what it represents, and how the game should be played BEFORE deciding on whether TTMWG is a good fit.

      - GG

      Delete
    11. > "Dude, just take the L."

      Really? That's the route you want to go?

      > "The world of gaming and even wargaming is far larger than the tabletop miniature wargaming niche."

      But here we're discussing the tabletop miniature wargaming niche.

      > "Frankly, it's, well, stupid to pretend that TTMWG is somehow the be-all, end-all of wargaming."

      Nobody said anything about "stupid".

      Take a chill pill, dude. Why so angry about this?

      Delete
    12. Dude, I'm not angry. I just think it's really stupid that you think everything here has to revolve around TTMWG.

      - GG

      Delete
    13. You claim you're not angry, but you keep flinging "stupid" around just because I disagreed with you. We get it, you're upset, calm down and learn to deal with different opinions.

      The post you're commenting on is *mainly* about tabletop miniatures wargames (see for example Evil's response to my comment about proxying). If this was about wargaming with wooden blocks or counters, or boardgames, the conversation would be different. It's a conversation worth having, sure, but not what we're discussing here about overhead in *miniatures* wargames.

      Back to the topic: Napoleonics using miniatures has famously a high barrier to entry. I wonder whether the smaller "epic" scales by Warlord Games make this better. Not sure they do, but I bet they help with the smaller table footprint.

      Delete
    14. Quick reminder:
      The intent behind these posts is to share ideas, not 'win' an internet argument for imaginary internet points.

      I love people playing devil's advocate, but remember, question the IDEA not the person.

      It's also why I usually spend the whole first paragraph clarifying/defining what the idea/topic is about.

      The comments here usually have much more interesting stuff than the original posts, and I'd rather not have to delete stuff.

      Thanks!

      -eM

      Delete
  5. I don't know the specifics of Zone Raiders, but if you're not too hung up on visuals, can you not proxy almost everything, minis and terrain (and build up your "actual" collection as you play and feel like replacing proxies)?

    That's usually my approach to tabletop gaming. I've been known to play miniatures games using bottle caps for minis (or self drawn standees) and boxes and assorted crap as terrain. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but of course it's subjective. I recently played a game of Operation Last Train with army men and random boxes for terrain, but bizarrely I obsessed about the dropship -- the least important element of the game -- and had to get it just right!

    (I do like visuals and build/paint the proper stuff when I can, but sometimes a gamer who happens to be a dad without infinite time -- I know you can empathize with this -- must make compromises).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to be very fast and casual painter/terrain maker but I do tend to have a 'if it ain't painted I ain't playing it' as it keeps me honest with my pile of shame.
      Hence Zone Raiders is 'forcing' me to paint Infinity and MDF :-).

      Games with a strong background aesthetic like Zone Raiders tend to make me more fussy than generic sci fi rules...

      -eM

      Delete
  6. Mental overhead – Choose/Develop simples rules like OPR, 5Core or Pulp Alley instead of complicated stuff like 40k, Infinity or Malifaux, where you don´t have to remember a thousand rules and special abilities. Offer beginner rules (incl. beginner scenarios) and advanced rules to keep the people interested in the game and maybe even serve a larger audience who like it more complex.

    Time overhead – Either reduce scale or the number of models required to reduce the painting time. For me 15mm scale (1/100) seems to be a good scale where you could still do skirmish games with single models but also mass battles with group basing. Terrain should be easy to prepare and usable for multiple systems and maybe even scales (e.g. generic woods and hills, maybe buildings which work for a broader time).

    Financial overhead – Nearly the same as for the time overhead applies here. If miniatures are expensive, like Fantasy and SciFi, the game should be with a low model count and playable with just one box of miniatures. If you need a lot of miniatures, it should be written for a smaller scale to reduce the cost. If you do a mass battle system, you should also think about abstracting the miniatures (e.g. a base of 4 soldiers is a full squad, platoon or a bigger organizational unit, instead of number of miniatures require a specific base size). Rule books should either include all the faction rules or addons should be cheap. A good starter box is recommended if you also offer miniatures (or cooperate with a manufacturer). From my point of view, a good starter box should contain the full rules, a quick start guide, two beginner armies and further stuff you need like dice, counters, etc.

    Spatial overhead – If space is an issue, reduction of scale could really help. For example, Bolt Action scaled down to 15mm could maybe be played on a 4x2 table instead of the regular 6x4 table. For historicals, it is often easy to downscale as the same periods are served in multiple scales. With the emergence of 3D printers, it seems to also be the case for Fantasy or SciFi miniatures (e.g. Forest Dragon miniatures for WHFB or Warmaster).

    For me personally, the most relevant overhead is really the time to prepare miniatures and terrain. I have a job and family; therefore, hobby time is often very restricted. The financial overhead is only felt if my wife is complaining that I added more miniatures to my pile of shame. I never had any problem with complex rules, as I started with Battletech and 40k 2nd Edition and also RPGs in the 90s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm basically aligned with all of this. Clearer, simpler core rules to promote correctness of play. Smaller figures and/or lower figure count to clarify the battle flow and speed prep, with inherently smaller battlefields and lower cost.

      Rules complexity is a challenge when the special rules for a given unit change with every edition. What does 'And They Shall Know No Fear' mean in the current game edition? How do Warp Spiders and D-Cannon work in this edition? And so on. If you don't play the latest edition a lot, it's hard to unlearn how things used to work.

      - GG

      Delete
    2. That is something that annoyed me so much when 3rd edition 40k came out that I stopped playing the game. It was basically a new game. New editions should be refinement instead of reinvention. It doesn´t help if a new edition is released at very short intervals.

      Delete
  7. GW was on the right track to fix terrain by making it something you could buy as part of the army, much like how they handled Dedicated Transports. If players are incented with underpriced terrain effects, they will make and take as much terrain as they can, and the terrain problem solves itself.

    - GG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Battlegroup uses a similar concept. You can also buy terrain as part of your army (e.g. gun pits, trenches, minefields, bunkers, roadblocks, etc.). More defensive formations like infantry units often have a higher number of choices than offensive formations like tank units. I like that approach.

      Delete
    2. Same. It's a natural, and elegant solution to the problem. Just as attackers want to mechanize their forces to increase mobility, defenders want to bunker down for survival. It only makes sense to balance the game in this way.

      - GG

      Delete
    3. In the Battlegroup Westwall supplement they even created more granular options for fortifications as the fighting in this area of the German border was more or less Allied forces trying to break through the German boder fortifications.

      Delete
  8. Like most things, there is a balance.

    People need hooks and unique experiences for the game to stand-out. This often means a solid, aesthetic that is somewhat unique. This means there is overhead to prepare and make your game stick-out. Most players choose new games because they have a certain "look" that is appealing to them. Very rarely do they even consider the rules, until they need a reason to ditch a project. :)

    This group is a bit of a niche and care about rules more than aesthetics. Therefore, the rules need to do something unique and interesting, but doing that leads to intellectual overhead because you are leaning away from the norms.

    The trick and the paradox is that you need to be just unique enough to draw attention, but not so unique that you turn people off. You need to live within the customer's bounds of what is acceptable. That is not always easy.

    In essence, a designer needs to understand who there Target Market is with a game and lean into it. For example, per Rick Priestley; younger folks like complex rules to be mastered and exploited, because they have the time and energy for it. Older gamers like more streamlined and simple rules that get a result quickly because they do not have time or energy for it. Opposite ends of the design spectrum for two different groups of buyers.

    EF from Blood and Spectacles

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > "For example, per Rick Priestley; younger folks like complex rules to be mastered and exploited, because they have the time and energy for it. Older gamers like more streamlined and simple rules that get a result quickly because they do not have time or energy for it."

      This totally nails it for me. As an older gamer, I've gravitated towards simpler, fast-paced systems where the complexity is provided "within my head" and not in the system itself. This means a lot of the new batch of skirmish games is for me -- the simpler, the better... as long as they are fun, of course.

      I'm willing to forgive a lot of sins -- that eM for example doesn't -- in service of this, but I naturally side with him when it comes to anything that burdens me with complexity (hitpoints, too many tokens, too many rules exceptions, etc).

      -Andy

      Delete