tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post8002845261851557933..comments2024-03-24T00:19:48.310-07:00Comments on Delta Vector: "Gameplay" Philosophy in Wargames: Game Design #15evilleMonkeighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-21489903995289570002014-12-20T14:03:08.442-08:002014-12-20T14:03:08.442-08:00I think your experience reflect mine (and a not-in...I think your experience reflect mine (and a not-insubstantial subset of gamers).<br /><br />I find it a weird, as if I was going to play WW2 I use a WW2 ruleset, not a fantasy one. Imagine pushing WW2 armies around whilst consulting a 40K rulebook. You'd get weird looks. But that, in effect, is what players are doing, and because it has WW2 pictures inside no one seems to dig deeper.<br /><br />I think some people will never look beyond the surface and they don't care to. THEY are having fun, so I guess it's fine for them. Pity about the rest of us.<br /><br />Thanks for the kind words - your blog is a source of inspiration: the #1 reason that got me interested in scratch-building terrain.evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-53796478438977392622014-12-20T02:40:03.041-08:002014-12-20T02:40:03.041-08:00I played Flames of War once and it was probably th...I played Flames of War once and it was probably the most unsatisfying game I've played. Despite playing on sculpted terrain with beautifully painted miniatures (and winning by a huge margin) I was puzzled and disappointed at how unlike a WWII engagement it was. Puzzled because so many people don't seem to realise this and disappointed that it not only doesn't reward sensible tactical play for the period but actually prevents one attempting it.<br /><br />I played Bolt Action last month too and it was crap (but not as crap as FoW). 'We all had fun though so it was ok' I was told. I didn't have fun but I lied to spare feelings. I'm glad I tried it and I'm glad I won't have to play it again. So much of both games didn't make any sense.<br /><br />No reaction fire was a major contributing factor that made the whole thing a joke and an utterly pointless exercise for me. Interestingly I felt more outraged at being able to do stuff that would be impossible in a real situation than I did about not being able to prevent my opponent from doing the same.<br /><br />People are entitled to enjoy whatever game they want of course and everyone likes different things. As a game designer I design games I'd like to play and hope there's enough others like me to make it worthwhile and not just an exercise in vanity. Trying to cater to everyone is going to put Sisyphus to shame and I no longer bother giving it any thought during the design process.<br /><br />Great blog by the way.Matakishihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10076452628641077312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-56909658780285623672014-12-16T16:39:25.960-08:002014-12-16T16:39:25.960-08:00It's funny you mention that. One of the things...It's funny you mention that. One of the things that make playtesting so hard is that you have to figure out if the testers are actually playing the game you wrote :)<br /><br />That depends a LOT on clear writing but I've had feedback come back on early drafts where the tester loved the game.... and it was super clear that they had totally not understood from what I wrote, what was actually supposed to be happening. :)Weaselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05873440251698488032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-38600963761080634152014-12-16T16:33:34.219-08:002014-12-16T16:33:34.219-08:00Danish, living in the United States and staying up...Danish, living in the United States and staying up very late, frequently. So.. you know.. citizen of the world :)<br /><br />Isn't it the worst feeling when you set out to write something and realize it just isn't going to be what you wanted it to be?<br /><br />For every thing I actually put out, I have 3 or 4 ideas that weren't fit to live.Weaselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05873440251698488032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-72177001207084937842014-12-16T13:23:11.787-08:002014-12-16T13:23:11.787-08:00I have nothing against 2HW and have always found E...I have nothing against 2HW and have always found Ed to be a great guy. I'm attacking the poorly written rules, not the man (or even the system, which is great for solo play and in some - not all - genres/situations.)evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-84695358070467028342014-12-16T13:20:50.507-08:002014-12-16T13:20:50.507-08:00I'd argue "fun and playability" are ...I'd argue "fun and playability" are not necessarily opposite to "accuracy, history and complexity." That's an assumption often made by game designers, but not a correct one. Accuracy/history and complexity are not the same, neither even on the same side of the equation. <br /><br />As you say, "history and fun" can (and should) go together. I doubt many players say "The game is very unrealistic, therefore it makes it more fun for me." <br /><br />In the case of Bolt Action, the entire design philosophy had nothing to do with any of the above, but rather in ensuring compatibility/similarity with 40K. In this, they succeeded admirably. <br /><br />In this case, not only the game mechanics, but also the ranges (24" rifle range vs 6"move) exactly match 40K - a space fantasy where "realism" can encompass a rifle with a 50 metre range more appropriate to a smoothbore musket than a Mauser 7.62mm. <br /><br />The sad thing is, the 24"range wasn't needed - changing it to 48" would not have made it less easy to understand for a 40K player (although you might not find it as easy to use similar tactics - you might have to use (GASP) more historical tactics....evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-5130632316505315012014-12-16T12:57:47.722-08:002014-12-16T12:57:47.722-08:00There are many factors here as you note and the se...There are many factors here as you note and the selection of these factors by the game designer (because design is a choice of what you emphasize) will depend on who you think your market is as well as what you want your game to do. I typically expect the game designer who emphasizes "fun" and playability to make fewer selections from the accuracy and history and complexity parts of the stockroom, which is ok unless you value these things. Thus a game like Bolt Action where, I'm told, the range of rifles is less than the length of a popular Pegasus Bridge model is so nonsensical to me that it ceases to be fun, because I want my game designs to have some resemblance to history and reality.Mad Padrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00410143683610813671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-36634986834654141992014-12-15T19:55:01.460-08:002014-12-15T19:55:01.460-08:00I too like 2HW games but find them less than intui...I too like 2HW games but find them less than intuitive to pick up quickly. They are worth persevering with though!Paul O'Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08611720164170399684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-59882043322078398882014-12-15T16:02:08.625-08:002014-12-15T16:02:08.625-08:00-Agree with your co-op point. I should have added...-Agree with your co-op point. I should have added a disclaimer. I don't mind dice rolled reactions for games, but not for EVERY game and situation. <br /><br />-Fun is always #1, but it's a bit hard to judge as "fun" varies so much, whilst "complexity" and "realism" is a bit more concrete. <br /><br />One thing I wish is that all game designers HAVE to play their own game once a week, at a local club against random opponents, rather than a bunch of mates (friends are not always your best critics, and less likely to douche-ily try to break the game).<br /><br />Also, they should give the rulebook to someone who has never playtested it before, and get them to explain the rules back to them BEFORE it is published; this would prove the rules are coherent on their own.<br /><br />(I.e. The old 2HW stuff might be poorly laid out, but the excellent word of mouth/promotion where most people have it shown to them by another "enthusiast" tends to disguise the fact) evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-76295990740471942602014-12-15T15:53:58.743-08:002014-12-15T15:53:58.743-08:00I'm not thinking stalking, but I did wonder th...I'm not thinking stalking, but I did wonder the hours you are awake (I'm presuming you're from a Scandinavian country, and you seem active in my Australian timezone!)<br /><br />In the first link "Design Philosophy" I've said this seems to be a dying art - not many games have a "foreword" where designers articulate their philosophy (and make themselves accountable) - this is common in older rulesets. <br /><br />A good design philosophy keeps a game "focussed" and gives you something to measure game ideas against. <br /><br />Ironically, a few years ago I started making a spaceship game on this blog, but have got frustrated with it as I cannot live up to my own "design criteria"!evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-46387533496068756872014-12-15T15:09:33.511-08:002014-12-15T15:09:33.511-08:00Nice article, I enjoyed it and agreed with 95%. T...Nice article, I enjoyed it and agreed with 95%. Two quick points:<br /><br />- die rolled reactions greatly enable solo wargaming and are a useful mechanism from that perspective. I agree with your premise, though sometimes coping with an outcome other than that intended is a good challenge too.<br /><br />- when considering what you want out of a game, consider what is FUN, both for you and your opponent(s). That may change with different players, situations and opponents, but different game mechanisms as you've articulated will suit different circumstances.Paul O'Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08611720164170399684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-83225046622013797172014-12-15T13:06:44.065-08:002014-12-15T13:06:44.065-08:00(Im not stalking you, I just think you post intere...(Im not stalking you, I just think you post interesting things, honest!)<br /><br />By and large in agreement here. This is part of why I think it's so important to have some sort of description of what you are actually trying to do. Whether it's a preface (clearly marked, instead of spread throughout as commentary), a designers notes page, a short list of objectives in front or on the back cover or something similar.<br /><br />I've thought about this often coming from a strong RPG background. The same gaming group will act differently in Harn than they will in Runequest and differently again in D&D. <br />D&D explicitly rewards combat (by making it a source of experience points, in some versions, the only source) while a game like Harn discourages it (by making you die horribly from the infected wounds afterwards). This spirals out into a general gaming culture from there.Weaselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05873440251698488032noreply@blogger.com