I enjoy football, and find the debate around VAR interesting. Is it worth it? Is the accuracy worth the delays? VAR seems to dominate the headlines a lot. Which generates clicks, probably. But whenever refereeing is the most discussed part of the game, not the players, tactics or goals - I think we'd agree that's pretty bad.
A good referee is barely noticed, but keeps the game running fairly and smoothly with few VAR-esque stoppages and interruptions.
I'd like to make an analogy. In wargames, the rulebook is the referee. And when the referee (aka rulebook) is at the forefront of the gaming experience, it's a bad game.
A good rulebook is barely noticed, but keeps the game running fairly and smoothly with few VAR-esque stoppages and interruptions.
PART A: A good rulebook should seldom be needed or noticed
So a few things flow from this. We can make some generalizations based on the above statement.
Lots of modifiers are bad.
Take Battletech. Here is a "cheat sheet" to make it easy to play the game. I reckon the cheat sheet needs it own cheat sheet....
Too many modifiers can get forgotten or just require you to look at the rulebook or quickplay sheet too often (interrupting play). Modifiers should be few, obvious, logical. Easy to remember. I reckon 2-4 maximum?
A corollary is insignificant modifiers. If the modifier doesn't do much in the scheme of things... why have it? A -1 on a d20 roll is 5%. Not worth. Modifiers are there to steer player choices. They should be few, significant, and be key factors for the type of combat the wargame is replicating. Do you really need a modifier for every last detail? "-1 to a shot because the sniper's wife was up last night nagging him."
--
Lots of range bands are bad.
Each Infinity weapon has it's own stats. There is 12? kinds of ammo.
Even if the range bands are somewhat standardized (like the newer edition) - many smaller increments guarantee you will have to measure often, and can't just eyeball the range.
This is just a small sample of rifles. (There's 150+ weapons... I feel 5 types of HMG is a bit excessive!)
Lots of range bands are (a) extra mental effort to remember and (b) means more mandatory measuring on the tabletop. This measuring and checking means more times the referee rules are interrupting the play.
--
Tables are bad.
I mean, you are being forced to use a rulebook (or at least a quick play aid). I like Battlefleet Gothic, but is there another way to do this?
Tables force you out of the game. They make the referee(rules) more visible - compulsory, even. Remember those old 1980s-1990s games with 101 tables?
Having to consult a table (even worse, several!) often means interruptions to the game that the rulebook itself has dictated. Bonus bad design points if the referee tables need to be consulted every turn.
The 90s are gone. They can take their tables (and music) with them.
--
Lots of special rules are bad.
Especially if they are unique to a faction and not in general use. About 10 years ago there was a shift away from "stats". Lots of wargames were advertised as "only one stat to remember!" - but they neglected to mention, that to differentiate armies, they replaced those universal, commonly understood stats with special rules - each special rule/trait/ability/keyword often a paragraph long.
These Infinity N5 rules are - ironically - vastly improved and cleaned up from earlier editions. But I still couldn't fit them into my single screenshot. If your 'special rules' go for 51 pages - you guarantee you'll need the referee rulebook. Often.
--
Lots of different dice resolution mechanics are bad.
There should be 2-3 ways to roll your dice, maximum. One universal mechanic would be even better. Two Fat Lardies make games that have a good 'feel' but they use 101 different mechanics. In Bag that Hun, there are 10 ways to resolve actions. You can:
#1. Roll 2d6 and compare to a Target Number. Ah, the same as Warmachine. (Spotting)
#2. Roll one d6 and compare to a Target Number. +/- Modifiers. (Maneuvers, tailing, crash landings.)
#3. Roll "buckets" of d6, 5+ hit. +/- Dice. Defender does the same. Compare total successes. (Shooting)
#4. Roll a d10 on a chart (Damage) Huh? We're using d10 now? This is the only time we need this dice.
#5. Opposed d6 roll. +/- Modifiers. (Shooting at parachutes) Because shooting at parachutes is so important, it needs its own special mechanic.
#6. Roll 3 d6, count doubles and triples. (Air to air rockets). Again, such a common occurence in-game, and this is the ONLY mechanic that would work.... right?
#7. Roll buckets of d6, +/- dice AND use different target numbers (Bombing). Just to vary method #3 enough to keep you guessing.
Cripes, I can't even remember all the dice rolling methods they used without looking at the rulebook. Having many ways to roll dice is needless complication that speaks of erratic game design.
---
Recording is bad.
It is forcing you out of the game to do math, or tick off a chart. It's accounting, not cool pew-pew. It's actually an unpleasantly increasing trend in wargaming. Why do all the skirmish games recently have hitpoints? (longtime readers will be expecting this one...)
(a) It's stupid... ...not even realistic - a person can lose 9 of 10 hitpoints from an war-axe, survive fine, then die the next turn when a rabbit bites their last 1hp
(b) It can be a lot of recording. If each "Whatever-grave" peasant or "Youtuber-made-a-game" grunt has 10 hitpoints... and there are just 12 peasants.. that's 120 boxes to be tracked/ticked off each game. Per side.
Sometimes recording is unavoidable. Big complex spaceships or 74-gun ships of line probably need hitpoints or some other way to show slow, incremental damage to many systems and subsystems as vast vessels of 100s, 1000s of tons slowly succumb. But not human hitpoints ffs.
But adding needless or avoidable recording takes you out the game. It's like bad VAR.
Corollary: Recording is bad... but tokens aren't great either.
I can't even remember what all of Infinity's tokens stand for. So you'd have to consult the referee rules... but my actual point is if your table is being cluttered by tokens you're constantly tracking/adding/removing.... it's also an unsightly form of recording...
Here are a few of the 'states' (aka things that need tokens) in Infinity. Not only do they need tokens, but you'll probably need to look them up.... consulting the rulebook... again.
Novelty for it's own sake is bad.
Familiar mechanics, tropes and stereotypes are easy to digest. If I tell you of a game where your units roll to hit on a d6 with 3+, 4+ or 5+ ; have similar defence and cover saves - also on a d6 - to cancel hits... you'll go "ah, sounds a bit like 40K." It's familiar. It's a frame of reference.
It also means players don't have to refer to the rules because they are already familiar with them.
I always find it interesting when folk obsess over mechanics and dice methods in the blog comments. I mean - the dice are just RNG. It's a way to generate results. Whether you use handfuls of d6s, or single d20s. Or if you shut your eyes and toss dice over your shoulder. Or combine them with cards.. or whatever.
People like novelty, I get it. No, I'm not that excited to play the next 40K clone either (I'd class Flames of Bolt Action in this category) buuuuut...
....Familiar mechanics and rules means less consulting the referee rules. And that's a good thing.
This IS good!
ReplyDeleteI guess I've come to my 5-decades+ gaming conclusion, and to a place that lets me believe that rules need to get out of the way of players making their own mistakes - and they will, and our games will be quite entertaining enough for it.
Yep. The ref (rules) needs to let the game flow. If the rules are simple and logical, it will work.
DeleteI've played thousands of hours of unrefereed games of football, and ultimate frisbee etc. They tend to have pretty clear rules "don't use your hands unless you're the goalie" that can be quickly explained. Casual games can go for hours with few stoppages.
Other games like netball (not sure how widely played this is outside Australia - might be worth a google) are constantly stop-start with the referee involved (blowing a whistle) every minute. The game can't flow.
Sometimes, rules like football's "offside" are problematic and cause debate. It's cos they are like a special rule in a wargame. "You can pass anytime EXCEPT if the attacker is...."
Or if the rule requires you to guess intent "if the attacker is intending to interfere" - again, it's a rule clarity issue.
Remove the confusing rule (like in 5-a-side football) and the problem is removed to.
-eM
Then games would descend into two groups of opposing players gathered around the goals at either end and the ball hoofed from one end to the other over the heads of where the midfield should be. Such would be "the beautiful game".
Delete- krhysd
Wait, you have nothing to say about the OP but want to nit-pick ambiguous wording in a reply to the comments? .......I love the internet. PS: Offside isn't an issue in 5-a-side.
Delete-eM
“Lots of modifiers are bad.”
ReplyDeleteAs a person that played a lot of Battletech, I must disagree. Even though there are a lot of modifiers in Battletech, I would say that the modifiers are all logical and are very easy to learn (or to look up on the cheat sheet). Your movement matters, your opponent´s movement matters, the terrain matters and the weapon range matters. The addition of four numbers is something every school child is able to do. Sure, you can abstract everything away to the same unmodified dice roll and still have a fun game, but you lose a lot of nuances of placing and moving your miniatures. I would also say that you only must play Battletech a few times and will remember all modifiers without even looking at the cheat sheet. I haven´t played Battletech for 20 years and still remember most of them. The reason I stopped playing the game was the equipment creep (e.g. lots of special rules), not modifiers, range bands, tables or recording.
“Lots of range bands are bad.”
I agree. 2-3 range bands are more than enough. That´s something that I dislike about Battlegroup. Each range band is 10”, so you have sometimes up to 7 range bands, but there is still something to like about this granularity. The range band influences the effectiveness of your weapons, so from this perspective the granularity of range bands could be good. I will playtest it soon.
“Tables are bad.”
If the table is complicated, then I agree, but most of the ones I encountered weren´t. Behind most tables is a either a simple formular that you can deduce easily (same value, hit on 4+, one or more higher, hit on 3+, value twice as high, hit on 2+) or are memorable due to rolling often on them (Hit Location Table in Battletech). Rolling on the Hit Location Table was always exciting because a single lucky hit could just kill your pilot or cause some critical hits.
“Lots of special rules are bad.”
I agree because from my point of view, this is the main reason you consult the rulebook as special rules don´t fit on a cheat sheet well. This killed Battletech for me, as every weapon and special equipment had some special rules that did not fit on the Mech record sheet and cheat sheet. Therefore, I would only play 3025 tech, maybe 3039/3050, but no more than that.
“Lots of different dice resolution mechanics are bad.”
I agree. Ideally, it is one. More than two shouldn´t be used.
“Recording is bad.”
It depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to have a fast, dynamic game with easy miniature removal, you should not have a lot of record keeping. I must come back to Battletech again. The game is more like a heavyweight boxing match, where attrition matters a lot. How do you achieve that without some recording? As the record keeping in Battletech is also linked to the Hit Location Table, there is always the excitement that you have to cross off too many boxes and lose something important from your mech.
I think that all these topics are mainly a problem because the people playing wargames today seem to have either not a lot of time for it (older people) or a shorter attention span (younger people). Therefore, the barrier of entry needs to be as low as possible.
Do bear in mind many good games will have one or more factors I've called 'bad.' But they all do detract attention towards the rulebook - away from the game; which (if you agree with the premise: that the focus should be on playing not looking at rules) then they are something that could be improved.
DeleteBear in mind just because you enjoy Battletech and are probably VERY familiar with it, does not make it 'best practice.' Your experience with it will certainly not be the same as a player picking it up and learning off the rulebook for the first - or second - or third time.
While I love the BT universe, I'd probably say O.G. BT ticks so many negative boxes (again, under the "looking at the rules is bad") it, alongside Infinity, is a bit of a VAR poster child for "rules/ref > gameplay." BT certainly benefits a LOT from nostalgia - and the fact it ISN'T 40K with its ever-changing rules and codexes. You have time to learn/memorize its foibles (and flaws) over time.
Re: Range bands. I'd like to elaborate on the OP and say they are only needed when they are a big enough factor to consider. I.e. the range modifiers matter. Example: You are using a d20, so -1 (-5%) modifiers are a bit silly. So having 4" increments at -1 each is a bit crazy. And you'd have to measure each and every time. You could instead have 12" bands and -3 modifier - the (-15%) actually matters when deciding tactics - and you can usually guess a 12" range band without recourse to a ruler.
Re: tables - if they have a simple formula underpinning it like your example - that's fine. If you can do away with the table - then it isn't essential to gameplay. No problemo!
Re: recording. I'd point out my OP re: 'necessary recording.' What does BT need? A way to show armour being degraded and systems knocked out. So some recording IS probably needed. Is there a faster, more efficient way to do it than current rules (i.e. so less time recording, more time playing)? Certainly.
A lack of time or attention span is one thing. A lack of time because the game was needlessly stretched out by constantly consulting the rules, reading tables, or ticking boxes rather than moving minis about - that's a game design issue.
-eM
“Do bear in mind many good games will have one or more factors I've called 'bad.' But they all do detract attention towards the rulebook - away from the game; which (if you agree with the premise: that the focus should be on playing not looking at rules) then they are something that could be improved.”
DeleteI agree that you should not be looking up rules all the time, but I would also say that you won´t be able to play most wargames without some parts of the rules externalized to cheat sheets or unit cards. I am also fine with that.
“Bear in mind just because you enjoy Battletech and are probably VERY familiar with it, does not make it 'best practice.' Your experience with it will certainly not be the same as a player picking it up and learning off the rulebook for the first - or second - or third time. “
I would say that nowadays it is much easier to learn any wargame as you could watch tutorials on Youtube in addition to reading the rules. This also applies to Battletech. In addition, there are introductory box sets available which weren´t around when I was playing, that also make entry into the system easier. However, I would still insist that the Battletech rules with 3025 tech are not that complex to learn. I started playing the game when I was 13 and nobody I played with back than had any problems with the rules. That the rules mostly stayed the same is a testament to their quality (in comparison to the ever-changing 40k rules).
“Re: Range bands. I'd like to elaborate on the OP and say they are only needed when they are a big enough factor to consider. I.e. the range modifiers matter. Example: You are using a d20, so -1 (-5%) modifiers are a bit silly. So having 4" increments at -1 each is a bit crazy. And you'd have to measure each and every time. You could instead have 12" bands and -3 modifier - the (-15%) actually matters when deciding tactics - and you can usually guess a 12" range band without recourse to a ruler.”
Completely agree. That´s the reason that I don´t like the granularity of the range bands in Battlegroup. The difference is too negligible.
“Re: tables - if they have a simple formula underpinning it like your example - that's fine. If you can do away with the table - then it isn't essential to gameplay. No problemo!”
So, tables per se are not the problem. They are only problematic if you cannot memorize them easily.
“Re: recording. I'd point out my OP re: 'necessary recording.' What does BT need? A way to show armour being degraded and systems knocked out. So some recording IS probably needed. Is there a faster, more efficient way to do it than current rules (i.e. so less time recording, more time playing)? Certainly.”
I would say that a game without any conditions other than “dead” sound very boring, so I would say that some recording is mandatory. I also don´t see an easy way to reduce the recording in Battletech without losing the spirit of the rules. The Catalyst in-house product Alpha Strike seems like an absolute failure keeping the Battletech spirit while being easier to play.
“A lack of time or attention span is one thing. A lack of time because the game was needlessly stretched out by constantly consulting the rules, reading tables, or ticking boxes rather than moving minis about - that's a game design issue.”
That needless stretching of playing time seems to be a matter of taste. For example, I don’t care about more clunky resolution mechanics if they deliver more realistic or interesting results.
I'm not criticizing people's preferences - that would be silly! Most of the games I like have several or many of these features.
DeleteThe bit I'm interested in debating and discussing is the premise:
a) If a focus on a rulebook is bad
b) and these features (tables, modifiers, special rules etc) force you to use the rulebook a lot
then
c) then by extension those features are also bad (in the sense of slowing/detracting from the on-table flow, like football VAR)
"I don't like... Sounds very boring.... not to my taste.... only a problem if you can't memorize...." This is talking about preferences.
Rather than "I personally like more complex damage" - I'm more interested in responses like:
"Actually you CAN do complex damage without looking at the rules or charts at all by doing x, like in y game" - which provably contradicts the basic premise of the OP.*
(*For example, like the wound/debuff system in Trench Crusade which allows a range of interesting decisions without needing recording besides few, removable tokens on the tabletop)
If that makes sense?
-eM
Makes sense. You are more interested in solutions to these problems rather than discussing whether they are problems in the first place. From the top of my head, I have one example for a good solution of modifiers but it is from a very simple tabletop wargame (or boardgame): Memoir 44. In this game you have unit cards with all relevant modifiers in their shooting and terrain cards with the modifiers relevant to interacting with the terrain or units with the terrain. For any given Szenario, you only use the relevant unit and terrain cards. They also don't Tage up much space as these cards are around the same size as MtG cards. So even though, ever, unit and every terrain has its own modifiers you have them filtered for each specific scenario.
Delete"You are more interested in solutions to these problems rather than discussing whether they are problems in the first place."
DeleteNo, I'm happy to discuss why they aren't problems, but just not based on "I like this, so it isn't a problem"
E.g. your Memoir 44 example is very helpful.
I'm going to reword it slightly (correct me if I got it wrong):
"If you include only relevant modifiers on your unit card, filtered by scenario, then you can have many modifiers overall, yet keep them easy to remember/minimal in game. Therefore: lots of modifiers is not bad/can be easily managed."
^this directly responds to/rebutts the OP argument which is along the lines of:
"lots of modifiers is bad because it interrupts/slows/takes you away from the table to check them just like VAR in a footy game"
^So we now have an example of how the original assertion may NOT be true, and have some ideas of how to manage it. Success! (and I learned a new mechanic!)
I'm not sure I get across my intent well in writing. What I like to do, it make an argument (which may or may not be correct) we can then explore better/solve in the comments.
Please presume I'm nerdily testing a math problem rather than trying to win internet points.
-eM
Creo que también influye mucho la "interfaz" y cómo se presenta la información más que la información en sí.
ReplyDeleteMM
Stay tuned for Part B.....
Delete-eM
I agree with much of this, except on the tables & novelty. First off, having 1 or 2 tables is fine. Just put them on a card you can check easily, and after a while people just know the results by heart. As for novelty.... why design a new game if there isn't anything really new in it? If it's just polished LOTR battlegame or cleaned up Infinity, well, ho-hum, good on you but as game design goes it's not a big accomplishment. And not very interesting to others either.
ReplyDelete"As for novelty.... why design a new game if there isn't anything really new in it? If it's just polished LOTR battlegame or cleaned up Infinity, well, ho-hum, good on you but as game design goes it's not a big accomplishment. And not very interesting to others either."
DeleteGiven the majority of most non-GW games ARE pretty deriative aka Flames of War/Bolt Action (pretty much 40K clones).... ....this may be your opinion but is pretty obviously NOT the popular opinion.
....Frostgave, Stargrave... whatever-grave. Lion Rampant, Dragon Rampant, Turkey Rampant. 5 Parsecs / 5 Leagues from the Borderlands. X Wing was a copy of Wings of War.... Indie wargames tend to be "get lucky then repeat the formula ad nauseam"
Other existing titles aren't doing much besides clean up their rules. Battletech is the same game since the 1980s... Infinity, Malifaux may have been revolutionary back in 2005 and 2009 but that's 20 years ago(!)
Claiming others don't find a derivative game interesting seems pretty illogical and to fly in the face of all evidence... ...which points to people preferring sequels/similar mechanics or the same game only slightly/incrementally modified.
-eM
Agreed most games are derivative, but within their lineage (barring derivatives made by ex GW employees).
DeleteSo I agree that the fandom wanting the umpteenth iteration of crave or xRampant, something I've found utterly disappointing (I already own the original, if I'm buying a new game system it better be different! But fans are very conservative) I think that's mostly within the lineage of each game. The "system" powering them must be different enough that it's worth buying. Otherwise why bother? Just theme your favorite game engine yourself.
"Crave" was meant to say xGrave. Fuck autocorrect and fuck blogging systems that won't let me edit comments.
DeleteI fully agree a rulebook must stay out of the game. This is one of the goals, and in my opinion achievements, of systems like Crossfire: the rules get out of the way, you're mostly making decisions a commander would make, not "playing the rules". Of course with some exceptions and caveats, because no game is perfect.
ReplyDeleteBut here's another thought: custom gadgets, cards and dice are usually reviled in this blog (not just by eM, I think I'm the only one who doesn't hate them) but they do help make the main rulebook fade away and make the rules easier to find. Games like Cyberpunk Red: Combat Zone become tractable thanks to their color-coded ruler (makes ranges easy), color dice and cards per figure where every special rule is mentioned. You still have to learn the basic rules, and the first time you see a special rule you'll have to look it up, but after that you don't need the rulebook anymore. The props/gadgets help make the rulebook something you seldom read, and help make the game flow. There's a big difference between reading in your guy's card in front of you that he's sporting a weapon with Repeat or Lethal or whatnot, and having to look it up each time in a rulebook.
I'm going to say something provocative: I think many indie authors are against "props" because they are harder to make. It's easier for an indie author to design a game if it's just a D6-based miniatures agnostic ruleset released as a PDF. It's harder to make a product with custom props unless there's a big publisher behind it and enough people to play it that the investment makes sense. Maybe with the rise of 3D printing this becomes less of a hurdle?
Delete"There's a big difference between reading in your guy's card in front of you that he's sporting a weapon with Repeat or Lethal or whatnot, and having to look it up each time in a rulebook."
Delete-This should be coming in Part B. "When the VAR interferes, how to keep the process quick." :-)
However - what goes on a unit card/how complex they can be could be a topic in itself (something I struggle to balance, anyway)
I think indie authors are wise not the use custom props. It's a barrier to entry.
If I need custom dice or counters or rulers my chance of buying an indie ruleset drops to aorund 0. If you want to make your rules popular, you can't make it difficult for people to play them.
A bit like some of these weird indie skirmish games that need 50-100 minis. That's a bit commitment (barrier) to a game I might not like. A far cry from re-using some of my 40K minis I've already got lying around...
-eM
> I think indie authors are wise not the use custom props. It's a barrier to entry.
DeleteWhat do you mean? The props come with the box, as in Combat Zone or Shatterpoint. If they do anything it's increase the price of the box, but price is a different issue. This is an issue for *authors* more than players: producing the props (or finding someone to do it for you) is more convoluted and riskier than simply sending a PDF or whatever to WargameVault or even Osprey.
> A bit like some of these weird indie skirmish games that need 50-100 minis. That's a bit commitment (barrier) to a game I might not like.
I agree with you here, but notice how it's different. The burden is you have to source and paint all those minis for an indie game with a minimalist ruleset you're not even sure you'll like... that's a huge commitment! But if the game came with 100 repainted minis in the core box it wouldn't be a burden to you. The problem is that indie authors cannot afford this.
Implicit in this is that the friction is not the price. Of course the custom props increase the price.
DeletePrice is usually not a problem for me, but I know it is for a lot of people. So I will preemptively acknowledge any points you can make about price, shipping and availability of big core boxes in the far fringes of the world (that is, anywhere that's not the UK or the US...and believe me, here in Argentina I share your pain). I usually buy this kind of big box games whenever I travel to the US.
I took props to mean any custom dice, turn templates, rulers etc.
DeleteIn most cases the indie author is focussed on making/selling rules (pdf usually, hard copy sometimes) rather than minis or props; something you can do with no major investment bar time.
I meant that having to 3D print or handmake a special template, ruler or dice etc is something that is a barrier to the average player. Maybe not quite as much as painting an extra minis, but a similar hassle factor in 'do I want to bother with these rules.'
Big box sets and props a la Shatterpoint I'd assume come more under the purview of more selling physical things/miniatures - which I regard separately: I'd assume getting into the physical production side of things is just a needless economic risk for the average indie author, rather than a wannabe player barrier for adopting the rules. So I'd view the economic issue as more a barrier on the author's side.
Unless it is crowdfunded? but I feel folk are a bit jaded about this by now (maybe just me).
Besides Frostgrave and Gaslands I'd hard pressed thinking of ever seeing bespoke minis or tokens for indie games.
-eM