tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post5480566970031829361..comments2024-03-24T00:19:48.310-07:00Comments on Delta Vector: Game Design #3. Special Rules, Stat Lines, and False EconomyevilleMonkeighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-73838824608741091112016-01-05T13:59:06.570-08:002016-01-05T13:59:06.570-08:00Interestingly, some games are reverting to a stat ...Interestingly, some games are reverting to a stat line - here, Deadzone introduces a movement stat to "simplify" things and remove Fast/Slow special rules...<br /><br />http://quirkworthy.com/2015/10/11/deadzone-redux-movement/evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-4063555082079160832015-03-02T12:25:26.832-08:002015-03-02T12:25:26.832-08:00I completely agree. FoF feels "right". ...I completely agree. FoF feels "right". The stat lines are fine, and lumping weapons together (a 5.45mm AK and a 5.56mm M16 are functionally identical) makes perfect sense. SAW/RPK, LAW/RPG, Makarov/Colt - the list goes on. All combatants are human and training is the determining factor. FoF are my favourite modern rules.<br /><br />TW simply means all aliens are "men in rubber suits." They even say somewhere in the rules that they expect all stuff acts the same - i.e. a Zarg with a force shield is much like a marine in power armour, or a blaster works much like a plasma cutter in its effect. This comparison seems a rather "forced" and it seems like they are squishing the setting to fit the rules. <br /><br />They then add to the system as you say, with a myriad of special rules which may/may not make sense (and don't add that much flavour anyway, in most cases.)evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-77420479489304498142015-03-02T10:00:58.573-08:002015-03-02T10:00:58.573-08:00Force on Force and Tomorrow's War are a good e...Force on Force and Tomorrow's War are a good example of this. FoF does cut-down stats very well. It's one of the (few) things in the rules I have no complaints about. Two basic stats - troop quality and morale - generic weapon rules and a modest number of special rules (at least in the core game). It wouldn't be hard to set up a game using regular forces without using any special rules. But when I've played FoF I never felt like anything was missing from the statlines, and differences in organisation and equipment can make a big difference.<br /><br />Tomorrow's War, on the other hand, starts to come undone a bit. To start with, the limits of the unit profiles restrict what you can do with it (a phenomenon described in your 'Vietnam in Space' post). However to try and get the sci-fi flavour they start adding extra rules and special rules. For example, with weapons, most troops have conventional ballistic rifles or advanced ballistic weapons (a simple +1 firepower). But if you want to be a bit more interesting there are four new classes of support weapons: energy weapons, railguns, lasers and plasma weapons, <i>each of which</i> has different effects at different tech levels! Part of this is just bad design - there's no need for it to be quite so complicated - but it also comes from stretching the limits of a simple system.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16909425215873991491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-16147623089757626592014-01-05T13:21:32.255-08:002014-01-05T13:21:32.255-08:00I do agree with your point the comparison is a lit...I do agree with your point the comparison is a little unfair due to the more generic nature of SoBH, but the general points stands. (Both systems are likely to be familiar to readers). <br /><br />Even simple "fixes" such as using a d10 rather than a d6 might have even added more "specificity" to the SoBH rules. evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-48673863100991886382014-01-05T13:17:31.130-08:002014-01-05T13:17:31.130-08:00Enjoyed your post. I like the "Oldhammer&quo...Enjoyed your post. I like the "Oldhammer" concept - I did a similar thing with Mordhiem which is still revived locally from time to time, but like you I couldn't stand the mechanics after a while. <br /><br />I also enjoyed SoBH which was a lovely "breath of fresh air" but I found it lacked lasting appeal - most people cited the reasons the "too simple, yet too many special rules" - which seems a bit contradictory, but I think I've explained it above.evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-56758318484307570132014-01-05T06:08:57.565-08:002014-01-05T06:08:57.565-08:00First of all just wanted to say that I really enjo...First of all just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading your blog, I often run into your posts here while surfing the web and you tend to discuss very interesting and relevant tabletop wargaming topics. <br /><br />Anyway in regards to this blog entry, I think it's really important to look at the context of the game and what it tries to accomplish. SBH as you know strives to be a very generic set of fantasy rules to use with any miniatures, which I really think is the reason for the large level of abstraction. I personally really like the minimal stat system the game uses, though I do think "movement" should be a stat (I also think having "unit types" would have helped with limiting the game's special rules clutter but that's a whole other topic). <br /><br />On the other hand, games like Lord of the Rings (LOTR) have very specific settings and so really benefit from having more stats, which allow for more granularity and precision. It's easier to represent differences between Aragorn and Boromir by having more numerical stats, while in SBH these guys would both probably be treated as "a human warrior hero" with much more similar profiles due to the generic nature of the game. I do agree with your overall points but I think the context and objectives of a game system have a lot to do with its approach to "stats vs special rules".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-60742040926604381602014-01-05T05:03:46.335-08:002014-01-05T05:03:46.335-08:00I totally concur with you assessment regarding SBH...I totally concur with you assessment regarding SBH. I played it quite regularly four-five year back and ended up buying all the supplements to get the special rules. It became obvious too that some of these special rules had not been adequately play-tested. Matakishi's 'Crom' rules is similarly 'bare-bones' and abstracts virtually everything, but is a much better system in my opinion. I talk about it on the latest post of my <a href="http://drumsdeep.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/oldhammer-redivivus.html" rel="nofollow">blog</a>. Garethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09486311422850536804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-89558891980141163142014-01-04T21:15:50.895-08:002014-01-04T21:15:50.895-08:00Maybe a rule of thumb:
When should it be a "...Maybe a rule of thumb:<br /><br />When should it be a "STAT?" - when every unit in the game uses it<br /><br />When should it be a "SPECIAL RULE" - when it is actually "SPECIAL" aka, rare, specific to a faction or particular unitevilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-46590104178694869302014-01-04T11:00:51.305-08:002014-01-04T11:00:51.305-08:00Interesting comment.Interesting comment.John Lambsheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598696442104566164noreply@blogger.com