So far I have dealt mostly with different ways to handle specific rules issues. This week I want to discuss something more abstract and subjective.
To start with, I should mention that I grew up on 40k and other GW games. Now, these games are commonly thought of to have serious rules and balance issues, and I will not dispute that. But they are fun. There is always something crazy going on - units teleporting to unexpected locations, tanks blowing up, huge monsters cutting down entire squads of men, powerful heroes dueling with swords and psychic powers, alien hive mothers birthing fresh warriors right there on the battlefield... never a dull moment.The interwebs call this "cinematic" gameplay as it focuses more on telling an exciting story than it does on making sense.
In contrast, historical games are completely down to earth, with rulesets that (hopefully) encourage good real-world strategy and tactics and where the most outlandish event you can hope for is that a weak unit beats a stronger one with some lucky dice rolls.
I'm not saying that this sort of "realism" doesn't have its place, and I enjoy a straightforward contest of tactical ability just as much as the next guy, but I can already do that in board games and computer games. When it comes to miniature armies that took me weeks or months to assemble and paint, I'd rather see them do something interesting.
I haven't delved too deep into 15mm rulesets yet, but from what I've seen so far, they favour the "realistic" approach. In part, this probably comes down to the disconnect between miniature lines and rule systems. Skirmish games like Warmachine can add a lot of excitement through
special rules catered to each model, but in 15mm this approach would be nearly
impossible as the rules have to be generic enough to handle all the various miniature lines available. Gruntz 15mm is a convenient example here as it is a straight copy/paste of the core Warmachine rules, but without any of the model-specific powers that make Warmachine a dynamic and unpredictable game. These are replaced with a unit builder and a list of generic abilities, of which only a handful can noticeably alter the flow of battle. This makes for a game with solid core rules but little in the way of exciting things to do with your units besides moving to a good position and selecting an optimal target to attack.
As I have already said in a previous article, the 15mm scale isn't particularly conductive to highly individualized models in the vein of Warmachine or Infinity. The figures are too small to tell apart easily and too numerous (at least at the level of engagement I want to play at) to keep track of unique abilities for all of them. But surely there must be some happy middle ground between the dry, "realistic" approach of historical games and the exciting, "cinematic" gameplay of 40k, Warmachine, Infinity, Necromunda...
As long as we are using the term "cinematic", let's consider war movies. I'm not really a fan, but the ones I've seen generally focus on one or a few individuals whose efforts have the potential to turn the tide of a larger battle. This could be a way to inject some excitement into the game - supplementing a typical army with a few potent models whose abilities can have a much greater impact on the game. I'm not talking simply about bigger guns here but special abilities to support allies, disrupt enemies, or otherwise affect the battlefield in unique ways, perhaps in the manner of psykers in 40k (or, even better, wizards in Warhammer Fantasy, but without the spells of mass destruction) and hackers in Infinity. Careful allocation (and elimination) of these assets while the main forces engage the enemy could become almost a sub-game within the main battle and would, hopefully, affect the balance of power without diminishing the importance of "normal" units and tactics that would still make up the majority of the game.
It would be tragically arrogant to think this approach hasn't been done yet, so if you know of any 15mm sci-fi rulesets that play like that, please let me know. Also, feel free to share your thoughts and preferences on the general topic of realism and cinematics (as pertaining to this article). Ta ta!
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Friday, 30 March 2012
Friday, 23 March 2012
Game Theory, part 5: Game Size and Basing
This week was a bit hectic for me, so I have picked a lighter topic for today's discussion. My apologies if it feels a bit rushed - it is.
By game size I mostly mean the number of miniatures that players field in a typical game. I've seen players familiar with military terminology (I'm not) refer to games as being "squad level", "platoon level", "company level" or similar, depending on the size of the forces on the table. Google tells me that 40k and Flames of War are company level games (although honestly I've never seen that many models in a normal 40k game except maybe for infantry-heavy Imperial Guard) while Infinity and Necromunda are squad level games (in that a player fields about a squad's worth of models; they are not really organized like a squad, though).
There are a few factors that influence the size of game:
1) Scale. The larger the models, the fewer of them fit on a table, obviously. Even more important than the physical size of the models is the implied "ground scale" - how distances on the game table correspond to distances in real life. The ground scale is often out of whack with the scale of the miniatures, because even with very small models, a gaming table is still an impossibly tiny surface to fight a battle on.
Consider a 15mm figure. Assuming it represents a human of average height (175cm, let's say), this would mean that a standard 4' gaming table is only about 140 metres across - about a quarter of the effective range of a decent assault rifle. So if ground scale was identical to model scale, even the most basic weapons would be able to fire across the entire table. If you don't want that, then distances (including movement rates and weapon ranges) must be scaled down even more (a lot more, usually) than the miniatures. This only goes so far, but smaller miniatures allow for shorter ranges without feeling too weird.
2) Cost. Larger armies obviously cost more. Even players who prefer large games tend to balk at the cost of starting a 40k army compared to a skirmish game like Infinity or Warmachine. Of course, that's only if you consider the cost of a minimal playable force - if you collect a large force, you're probably going to pay as much as for a 40k army, and will have less models to show for it. This is actually something that few people take into consideration, but I strongly suspect that the real reason every 28mm scale game besides 40k is limited to small skirmishes is simply that nobody besides GW can offer large armies at an affordable price, especially large vehicles. Yes, I am completely serious.
Luckily this is far less of an issue in smaller scales. 15mm infantry is very affordable, vehicles unfortunately less so, but still not too horrible, and 6mm is cheap as chips. Still, even in 15mm there's a big difference in cost between squad level and, say, company level games.
3) Detail. As I've already mentioned last Friday, the number of models on the table is inversely proportional to the level of detail (rules-wise), or else the game slows to a crawl. A force of individualistic characters with unique equipment and skills just isn't playable above squad level in any reasonable amount of time. Now, smaller models also mean less detailed sculpting and consequently less characterful and individualistic models, which encourages more streamlined rules and in turn allows for more models on the table.
The above generalizations aside, the various 15mm systems still allow for a wide range of game sizes, from squad level skirmishes to company scale and above with multiple figures per base. The Dropship Horizon blog has a great list of all the different offerings.
Speaking of bases, this is another matter that goes hand in hand with game size. Some systems opt to have multiple infantry models (typically 3 to 5) mounted on a single base while others have them individually based. The two approaches meet right at 15mm scale - larger models are invariably on individual bases, and smaller models are almost always on multiple figure bases, but in 15mm both approaches are common and some systems (like Gruntz 15mm) even have allowances for both.
Group basing speeds up the game considerably since a group of infantry move, attack and die as a single entity. It can also be visually appealing, as each multi-figure base can effectively be turned into a small diorama. On the flip side, such basing restricts movement and requires an even greater deal of abstraction regarding attacks and casualties. Opinions differ on whether the tradeoff is worth it.
I think group basing works well in Flames of War but it starts making less and less sense in later time periods. Once every soldier has his own radio, there's really no reason for them to be so bunched up that one grenade can take out a whole squad, so it's out of the question in most sci-fi settings. I personally prefer individual basing even in large games and I would rather make concessions in other areas (like simpler statlines) to keep gameplay at a reasonable speed.
So what is a nice game size for 15mm? When I decided to collect an army in this scale I imagined a typical force, given that the miniatures are half as large, would have about double the models of a typical 40k army. I know 40k armies are oversized for the scale, but I'm willing to take the same route in 15mm to make for some really impressive battles. I'm thinking about a dozen armoured vehicles per side, with a supporting gunship or two and several dozen infantrymen.
If anyone is running games of this size I'd love to hear about it. Which system are you using and how long do the games take? How do you prevent them turning into "line up and shoot"? Let me know.
By game size I mostly mean the number of miniatures that players field in a typical game. I've seen players familiar with military terminology (I'm not) refer to games as being "squad level", "platoon level", "company level" or similar, depending on the size of the forces on the table. Google tells me that 40k and Flames of War are company level games (although honestly I've never seen that many models in a normal 40k game except maybe for infantry-heavy Imperial Guard) while Infinity and Necromunda are squad level games (in that a player fields about a squad's worth of models; they are not really organized like a squad, though).
There are a few factors that influence the size of game:
1) Scale. The larger the models, the fewer of them fit on a table, obviously. Even more important than the physical size of the models is the implied "ground scale" - how distances on the game table correspond to distances in real life. The ground scale is often out of whack with the scale of the miniatures, because even with very small models, a gaming table is still an impossibly tiny surface to fight a battle on.
Consider a 15mm figure. Assuming it represents a human of average height (175cm, let's say), this would mean that a standard 4' gaming table is only about 140 metres across - about a quarter of the effective range of a decent assault rifle. So if ground scale was identical to model scale, even the most basic weapons would be able to fire across the entire table. If you don't want that, then distances (including movement rates and weapon ranges) must be scaled down even more (a lot more, usually) than the miniatures. This only goes so far, but smaller miniatures allow for shorter ranges without feeling too weird.
2) Cost. Larger armies obviously cost more. Even players who prefer large games tend to balk at the cost of starting a 40k army compared to a skirmish game like Infinity or Warmachine. Of course, that's only if you consider the cost of a minimal playable force - if you collect a large force, you're probably going to pay as much as for a 40k army, and will have less models to show for it. This is actually something that few people take into consideration, but I strongly suspect that the real reason every 28mm scale game besides 40k is limited to small skirmishes is simply that nobody besides GW can offer large armies at an affordable price, especially large vehicles. Yes, I am completely serious.
Luckily this is far less of an issue in smaller scales. 15mm infantry is very affordable, vehicles unfortunately less so, but still not too horrible, and 6mm is cheap as chips. Still, even in 15mm there's a big difference in cost between squad level and, say, company level games.
3) Detail. As I've already mentioned last Friday, the number of models on the table is inversely proportional to the level of detail (rules-wise), or else the game slows to a crawl. A force of individualistic characters with unique equipment and skills just isn't playable above squad level in any reasonable amount of time. Now, smaller models also mean less detailed sculpting and consequently less characterful and individualistic models, which encourages more streamlined rules and in turn allows for more models on the table.
The above generalizations aside, the various 15mm systems still allow for a wide range of game sizes, from squad level skirmishes to company scale and above with multiple figures per base. The Dropship Horizon blog has a great list of all the different offerings.
Speaking of bases, this is another matter that goes hand in hand with game size. Some systems opt to have multiple infantry models (typically 3 to 5) mounted on a single base while others have them individually based. The two approaches meet right at 15mm scale - larger models are invariably on individual bases, and smaller models are almost always on multiple figure bases, but in 15mm both approaches are common and some systems (like Gruntz 15mm) even have allowances for both.
Group basing speeds up the game considerably since a group of infantry move, attack and die as a single entity. It can also be visually appealing, as each multi-figure base can effectively be turned into a small diorama. On the flip side, such basing restricts movement and requires an even greater deal of abstraction regarding attacks and casualties. Opinions differ on whether the tradeoff is worth it.
I think group basing works well in Flames of War but it starts making less and less sense in later time periods. Once every soldier has his own radio, there's really no reason for them to be so bunched up that one grenade can take out a whole squad, so it's out of the question in most sci-fi settings. I personally prefer individual basing even in large games and I would rather make concessions in other areas (like simpler statlines) to keep gameplay at a reasonable speed.
So what is a nice game size for 15mm? When I decided to collect an army in this scale I imagined a typical force, given that the miniatures are half as large, would have about double the models of a typical 40k army. I know 40k armies are oversized for the scale, but I'm willing to take the same route in 15mm to make for some really impressive battles. I'm thinking about a dozen armoured vehicles per side, with a supporting gunship or two and several dozen infantrymen.
If anyone is running games of this size I'd love to hear about it. Which system are you using and how long do the games take? How do you prevent them turning into "line up and shoot"? Let me know.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Game Theory, part 4: Tracking Damage
This Friday I want to share my thoughts on the various ways to keep track of damage on your models. This is, I think, one of the chief aspects of game design where realism and playability often directly conflict with each other. Detailed damage tracking can be one of the most time-intensive aspects of a game system, which is why it is so commonly abstracted and simplified to a great degree, sometimes so far that it barely even functions as a representation of damage capacity and completely ignores the potential loss of performance due to damage suffered. I'll discuss a few damage tracking options below, starting with the simplest.
This is, of course, a basic hit point system. Models have a certain capacity for absorbing damage and get destroyed when the damage exceeds this capacity. Hit point systems do not have any sort of performance loss mechanic built in, and models often fight as their full potential until they lose their last hit point.
Some games tack on simple ways to track performance loss in a hit point system. Critical hits are a common mechanic, accomplished either through some factor in the attack dice roll (scoring the maximum result, rolling doubles or triples, beating the target's defense stat by a certain amount...) or when a certain amount of hit points are lost. Gruntz 15mm is a great example of the latter case: as a vehicle loses hit points, there are certain predetermined points where it has to roll to see if any of its systems are compromised.
Hit point systems can be expanded to cover damage in greater detail by arranging the hit points in a damage grid. A damage grid can reflect the shape and structure of the model it represents, allowing players to determine exactly where a hit lands and which part of the target is damaged. Performance is affected depending on the location of the damage. I'm not too familiar with the game, but I believe Battletech is a classic example. Unfortunately, detailed damage grids slow down the game considerably and require large amounts of bookkeeping and space for the grids, making them unpractical for games with more than a few models per side. Damage grids can also be simpler and correspond less to the physical shape of the model and focus more on abstracted critical systems, such as in Warmachine. Its grids are small enough to fit on standard-sized statcards, making damage tracking acceptably fast for a dozen or so models.
Another method of determining damage are damage tables. The best known game using a damage table is undoubtedly Warhammer 40.000. This system assumes that a successful hit always causes some noticeable loss of performance in a specific system, and that models cannot simply absorb damage with no consequence. After a successful attack, a roll is made on a special table to determine the effect of the hit, which can either destroy the vehicle or permanently or temporarily reduce its firepower and/or mobility. The issue some players have with such a system is that it is too "all or nothing" - depending on dice luck, a model could get taken out with the first blow, or survive many attacks with barely any effect. Others insist that this is still more realistic than hit point systems, and that vehicles cannot really be worn down by successive minor damage. A hit either penetrates and causes serious damage, or does nothing.
Damage tables are also often used to determine the effects of critical hits in hit point systems. This is the case in Spartan Games systems, such as Firestorm Armada, and in GW's Battlefleet Gothic.
Other methods of randomly determining damage effects include drawing damage cards or tokens from a pool, but the end effect is largely the same as with damage tables, with the notable difference that the odds of drawing a certain result change depending on which cards or tokens have already been drawn, which can annoy players concerned with realism. On the upside, drawing special damage cards allows a wider range of possible unique results compared to a reasonably sized damage table. GW's unjustly maligned game Dreadfleet, for example, includes a damage card representing the death of a captain's parrot. It's easy to get away with one such card in a deck of 55, but there's simply no room for that kind of thing on a D6 or 2D6 or probably even a D20 damage table.
Besides determining damage, the method in which we track it should also be considered. There are three chief ways that come to my mind at this moment:
Damage can be marked on statcards, which can provide a modest amount of room for bookkeeping in addition to being a very handy reference for a model's stats and abilities. If the cards are sleeved, you can write on them with non-permanent markers and wipe them after the game. Statcards are great for systems with hit points tracks or moderately sized damage grids, a low model count and many unique models, but they can take up too much space and become hard to manage in games with lots of identical models per side.
Army rosters can also provide room for bookkeeping. They look less nice than statcards but are often more condensed, allowing you to fit more information in the limited amount of space on your gaming table. Popular games are usually supported with army-building software which allows players to effortlessly construct and print rosters. For more obscure games, this has to be done by hand or with normal word processing or spreadsheet software.
Tokens or cards can be placed next to models to indicate damage, as well as a plethora of other effects. This method allows players to evaluate the status of all the models at a glance, without poring over their cards or rosters. It also makes it a lot easier to see the damage inflicted on the enemy. It can, however, clutter up the battlefield, and some attention is required to keep the tokens with the models they belong to. Using tokens or cards usually also means that all damage results are possible on all models, while writing damage down on statcards or rosters allows for custom damage results for specific models. Purchasing or making tokens is also an additional and often unwanted expense, but I've already covered this in a previous blog.
Like with statlines, there is no perfect system for tracking damage. The most important thing is that it meshes well with the rest of the system, the desired level of detail, and the number of models on the table.
Detailed damage tracking can greatly improve the feeling of realism and even "cinematics" - knowing which specific weapon gets blown off a mech, for example. But it can bog down a game with lots of models. It would be unfeasible to track the status of individual weapons in a 6mm scale game with battalions of tanks on each side, but completely expected (and often desired) of a game with only half a dozen models per side.
As one for the more prominent features of a gaming system, damage tracking is often used by prospective players as a gauge to assess the entire game, so it should be polished and presented well, regardless of its specifics. Even a simple hit point system can be made to look appealing with a nice graphical layout, perhaps with hit point boxes printed inside a silhouette of the model on its statcard.
As always, I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this, and any possible methods I might have missed. Ta ta!
This is, of course, a basic hit point system. Models have a certain capacity for absorbing damage and get destroyed when the damage exceeds this capacity. Hit point systems do not have any sort of performance loss mechanic built in, and models often fight as their full potential until they lose their last hit point.
Some games tack on simple ways to track performance loss in a hit point system. Critical hits are a common mechanic, accomplished either through some factor in the attack dice roll (scoring the maximum result, rolling doubles or triples, beating the target's defense stat by a certain amount...) or when a certain amount of hit points are lost. Gruntz 15mm is a great example of the latter case: as a vehicle loses hit points, there are certain predetermined points where it has to roll to see if any of its systems are compromised.
Hit point systems can be expanded to cover damage in greater detail by arranging the hit points in a damage grid. A damage grid can reflect the shape and structure of the model it represents, allowing players to determine exactly where a hit lands and which part of the target is damaged. Performance is affected depending on the location of the damage. I'm not too familiar with the game, but I believe Battletech is a classic example. Unfortunately, detailed damage grids slow down the game considerably and require large amounts of bookkeeping and space for the grids, making them unpractical for games with more than a few models per side. Damage grids can also be simpler and correspond less to the physical shape of the model and focus more on abstracted critical systems, such as in Warmachine. Its grids are small enough to fit on standard-sized statcards, making damage tracking acceptably fast for a dozen or so models.
Another method of determining damage are damage tables. The best known game using a damage table is undoubtedly Warhammer 40.000. This system assumes that a successful hit always causes some noticeable loss of performance in a specific system, and that models cannot simply absorb damage with no consequence. After a successful attack, a roll is made on a special table to determine the effect of the hit, which can either destroy the vehicle or permanently or temporarily reduce its firepower and/or mobility. The issue some players have with such a system is that it is too "all or nothing" - depending on dice luck, a model could get taken out with the first blow, or survive many attacks with barely any effect. Others insist that this is still more realistic than hit point systems, and that vehicles cannot really be worn down by successive minor damage. A hit either penetrates and causes serious damage, or does nothing.
Damage tables are also often used to determine the effects of critical hits in hit point systems. This is the case in Spartan Games systems, such as Firestorm Armada, and in GW's Battlefleet Gothic.
Other methods of randomly determining damage effects include drawing damage cards or tokens from a pool, but the end effect is largely the same as with damage tables, with the notable difference that the odds of drawing a certain result change depending on which cards or tokens have already been drawn, which can annoy players concerned with realism. On the upside, drawing special damage cards allows a wider range of possible unique results compared to a reasonably sized damage table. GW's unjustly maligned game Dreadfleet, for example, includes a damage card representing the death of a captain's parrot. It's easy to get away with one such card in a deck of 55, but there's simply no room for that kind of thing on a D6 or 2D6 or probably even a D20 damage table.
Besides determining damage, the method in which we track it should also be considered. There are three chief ways that come to my mind at this moment:
Damage can be marked on statcards, which can provide a modest amount of room for bookkeeping in addition to being a very handy reference for a model's stats and abilities. If the cards are sleeved, you can write on them with non-permanent markers and wipe them after the game. Statcards are great for systems with hit points tracks or moderately sized damage grids, a low model count and many unique models, but they can take up too much space and become hard to manage in games with lots of identical models per side.
Army rosters can also provide room for bookkeeping. They look less nice than statcards but are often more condensed, allowing you to fit more information in the limited amount of space on your gaming table. Popular games are usually supported with army-building software which allows players to effortlessly construct and print rosters. For more obscure games, this has to be done by hand or with normal word processing or spreadsheet software.
Tokens or cards can be placed next to models to indicate damage, as well as a plethora of other effects. This method allows players to evaluate the status of all the models at a glance, without poring over their cards or rosters. It also makes it a lot easier to see the damage inflicted on the enemy. It can, however, clutter up the battlefield, and some attention is required to keep the tokens with the models they belong to. Using tokens or cards usually also means that all damage results are possible on all models, while writing damage down on statcards or rosters allows for custom damage results for specific models. Purchasing or making tokens is also an additional and often unwanted expense, but I've already covered this in a previous blog.
Like with statlines, there is no perfect system for tracking damage. The most important thing is that it meshes well with the rest of the system, the desired level of detail, and the number of models on the table.
Detailed damage tracking can greatly improve the feeling of realism and even "cinematics" - knowing which specific weapon gets blown off a mech, for example. But it can bog down a game with lots of models. It would be unfeasible to track the status of individual weapons in a 6mm scale game with battalions of tanks on each side, but completely expected (and often desired) of a game with only half a dozen models per side.
As one for the more prominent features of a gaming system, damage tracking is often used by prospective players as a gauge to assess the entire game, so it should be polished and presented well, regardless of its specifics. Even a simple hit point system can be made to look appealing with a nice graphical layout, perhaps with hit point boxes printed inside a silhouette of the model on its statcard.
As always, I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this, and any possible methods I might have missed. Ta ta!
Friday, 9 March 2012
Game Theory, part 3: Stats
Well, looks like Friday has officially turned into Game Theory day on 1%FUTURE.
This week I want to discuss stats and associated design parameters. By stats I of course mean the different attributes that games use to track the capabilities of individual models, such as Strength, Defense, Morale and so on. I find that this, too, is a very important aspect of game design and I have personally been turned off to many game systems because of an unappealing statline.
One of the core aspects that can determine the feel and style of a ruleset is simply the number of different stats possessed by each model, and there is a decent amount of variation between systems in this regard. Rulesets with lots of stats are said to be more detailed (obviously) and often thought of as being more realistic (although I personally find this assumed correlation between detail and realism tenuous at best) and tend to be marketed more towards "hardcore" gamers while systems with few stats are assumed to be simplistic and aimed more at "casual" gamers (whether this distinction actually exists is another question altogether).
Besides the actual number of different stats it is also important to note the range of possible values for each stat. These two factors together effectively determine the amount of real variation that is possible between different models in the game. The well-known game Warhammer 40k has no less than 9 base stats, but most of them actually have a range of only 2 or 3 possible values for regular soldiers, meaning that the differentiation between models is actually a lot less than it seems to be at first glance. However, with such a small range of values, any difference is actually meaningful. An extra point of Toughness has a huge impact on the game, while one point either way is barely noticeable in a percentile system (where values can often range between 1 and 100).
A crucial aspect of a game's appeal is the way the stats are presented. I have closed and deleted many pdfs ("indy" games often seem to have more trouble with good presentation) when a quick glance at the sample unit profiles revealed a large, plain chart filled with meaningless (for anyone who hasn't pored over the entire document in detail already) numbers and acronyms. It is clear that I am not alone in this, as almost all recent games have adopted the use of visually appealing statcards for individual units and/or full-page spreads for each unit where the statline is accompanied by illustrations and background information to break up the monotony of what is essentially a string of numbers.
The number (and value range) of stats in a game obviously depend chiefly on the designers' desired level of detail, but other considerations should also be made. Presentation, as mentioned above, is important. Long statlines can look intimidating and dissuade players from even attempting to learn the game. Designers should always examine every stat and determine whether it really contributes anything to playability or is just cluttering up the statline. As an example, the Wounds stat in Warhammer has a value of 1 on every model except for the greatest heroes and huge monsters. This creates the illusion of variety when in actuality the Wounds stat is completely superfluous on almost all models. It would be simple and effective to remove the stat altogether and replace it with a special rule that only appeared on those mighty hero and monster models. This would reduce the length of the statline for regular models, making it more readable, without taking anything away from the game.
From the players' perspective, there is probably no such thing as the perfect statline. Some might gravitate towards shorter or longer statlines, depending chiefly on how detailed they wish their battles to be. Some people might desire the inclusion of a specific stat so that they can properly represent a certain army they have in mind. A player who is dead-set on playing agile space elves, for example, will probably look for systems where their characteristics can be represented in some way - perhaps through Maneuverability, Evasion, Initiative or other similar stat. In this regard it's impossible to please everyone, and games that try usually fail the hardest.
Designers should have clear goals in mind when designing statlines. The role of each stat should be carefully considered and stats should not be added simply to cater to specific types of players or factions (that's what special rules are for) or to create a fictitious appearance of variety. Each stat should have a clear and important function in the game rules that could not be replicated with other kinds of abilities. As long as the stats are presented intelligently and mesh well with the rest of the rules, I think most players will be willing to give it a go, even if they would personally prefer a longer or shorter statline.
So, what are those measurable model attributes that usually take the form of stats in a game system? Off the top of my head, I can think of a fair few that seem to crop up in almost every system:
Movement: some games have standardized movement values, usually depending on unit type, while many games have individual movement stats for all models. Is there a right and wrong way to go here? There are many complaints about 40k's standardized 6" movement but I think it meshes well with weapon ranges (all multiples of 6) to create an interesting, fluid and intuitive system of ranged and melee threat ranges (which then breaks down because of special movement abilities that add a random value to a unit's speed).
Attack Skill: often split into melee and ranged ability, but rarely omitted (Flames of War being a noteworthy exception). Determines a model's chance to hit its target. Sometimes it depends entirely on the attacker's ability, sometimes it is opposed in some way by some sort of Defense Skill.
Attack Power: determines the chance of a successful strike damaging the target. In extremely streamlined systems Attack Power and Attack Skill can be combined into a single stat. In many systems, Attack Power is opposed by one or more abilities representing the target's Resilience, sometimes split between its natural toughness and artificial armour, sometimes combining the two. In more detailed systems, Attack Power is often assigned to individual weapons, not models as a whole (although models might also have an Attack Power of their own to represent unarmed attacks) and different parts of a model might have their own armour values.
Morale is also present in almost all games under one name or another, sometimes also incorporating other aspects of training and leadership, such as the maximum range at which a commander can order his troops.
Damage Capacity is expressed as a stat in some systems (as wounds or hit points, for example) but is handled by other mechanics just as often (damage tokens, damage boxes, disabled systems...)
Besides these common attributes there is a slew of others that are included in some systems but not others. Aspects such as perception, reaction speed, magical ability, energy shields, maneuverability, size, intelligence and many others are covered by one system or another depending on the desired complexity level and the specific needs of the genre and setting.
Well, that's all that comes to mind right now. I'd like to know if I forgot to cover any important attributes in my list above. Speaking specifically about 15mm sci-fi systems, are there any other stats you think are important? Do you know of any systems that are a radical departure from the above? Do let me know.
Ta ta!
This week I want to discuss stats and associated design parameters. By stats I of course mean the different attributes that games use to track the capabilities of individual models, such as Strength, Defense, Morale and so on. I find that this, too, is a very important aspect of game design and I have personally been turned off to many game systems because of an unappealing statline.
One of the core aspects that can determine the feel and style of a ruleset is simply the number of different stats possessed by each model, and there is a decent amount of variation between systems in this regard. Rulesets with lots of stats are said to be more detailed (obviously) and often thought of as being more realistic (although I personally find this assumed correlation between detail and realism tenuous at best) and tend to be marketed more towards "hardcore" gamers while systems with few stats are assumed to be simplistic and aimed more at "casual" gamers (whether this distinction actually exists is another question altogether).
Besides the actual number of different stats it is also important to note the range of possible values for each stat. These two factors together effectively determine the amount of real variation that is possible between different models in the game. The well-known game Warhammer 40k has no less than 9 base stats, but most of them actually have a range of only 2 or 3 possible values for regular soldiers, meaning that the differentiation between models is actually a lot less than it seems to be at first glance. However, with such a small range of values, any difference is actually meaningful. An extra point of Toughness has a huge impact on the game, while one point either way is barely noticeable in a percentile system (where values can often range between 1 and 100).
A crucial aspect of a game's appeal is the way the stats are presented. I have closed and deleted many pdfs ("indy" games often seem to have more trouble with good presentation) when a quick glance at the sample unit profiles revealed a large, plain chart filled with meaningless (for anyone who hasn't pored over the entire document in detail already) numbers and acronyms. It is clear that I am not alone in this, as almost all recent games have adopted the use of visually appealing statcards for individual units and/or full-page spreads for each unit where the statline is accompanied by illustrations and background information to break up the monotony of what is essentially a string of numbers.
The number (and value range) of stats in a game obviously depend chiefly on the designers' desired level of detail, but other considerations should also be made. Presentation, as mentioned above, is important. Long statlines can look intimidating and dissuade players from even attempting to learn the game. Designers should always examine every stat and determine whether it really contributes anything to playability or is just cluttering up the statline. As an example, the Wounds stat in Warhammer has a value of 1 on every model except for the greatest heroes and huge monsters. This creates the illusion of variety when in actuality the Wounds stat is completely superfluous on almost all models. It would be simple and effective to remove the stat altogether and replace it with a special rule that only appeared on those mighty hero and monster models. This would reduce the length of the statline for regular models, making it more readable, without taking anything away from the game.
From the players' perspective, there is probably no such thing as the perfect statline. Some might gravitate towards shorter or longer statlines, depending chiefly on how detailed they wish their battles to be. Some people might desire the inclusion of a specific stat so that they can properly represent a certain army they have in mind. A player who is dead-set on playing agile space elves, for example, will probably look for systems where their characteristics can be represented in some way - perhaps through Maneuverability, Evasion, Initiative or other similar stat. In this regard it's impossible to please everyone, and games that try usually fail the hardest.
Designers should have clear goals in mind when designing statlines. The role of each stat should be carefully considered and stats should not be added simply to cater to specific types of players or factions (that's what special rules are for) or to create a fictitious appearance of variety. Each stat should have a clear and important function in the game rules that could not be replicated with other kinds of abilities. As long as the stats are presented intelligently and mesh well with the rest of the rules, I think most players will be willing to give it a go, even if they would personally prefer a longer or shorter statline.
So, what are those measurable model attributes that usually take the form of stats in a game system? Off the top of my head, I can think of a fair few that seem to crop up in almost every system:
Movement: some games have standardized movement values, usually depending on unit type, while many games have individual movement stats for all models. Is there a right and wrong way to go here? There are many complaints about 40k's standardized 6" movement but I think it meshes well with weapon ranges (all multiples of 6) to create an interesting, fluid and intuitive system of ranged and melee threat ranges (which then breaks down because of special movement abilities that add a random value to a unit's speed).
Attack Skill: often split into melee and ranged ability, but rarely omitted (Flames of War being a noteworthy exception). Determines a model's chance to hit its target. Sometimes it depends entirely on the attacker's ability, sometimes it is opposed in some way by some sort of Defense Skill.
Attack Power: determines the chance of a successful strike damaging the target. In extremely streamlined systems Attack Power and Attack Skill can be combined into a single stat. In many systems, Attack Power is opposed by one or more abilities representing the target's Resilience, sometimes split between its natural toughness and artificial armour, sometimes combining the two. In more detailed systems, Attack Power is often assigned to individual weapons, not models as a whole (although models might also have an Attack Power of their own to represent unarmed attacks) and different parts of a model might have their own armour values.
Morale is also present in almost all games under one name or another, sometimes also incorporating other aspects of training and leadership, such as the maximum range at which a commander can order his troops.
Damage Capacity is expressed as a stat in some systems (as wounds or hit points, for example) but is handled by other mechanics just as often (damage tokens, damage boxes, disabled systems...)
Besides these common attributes there is a slew of others that are included in some systems but not others. Aspects such as perception, reaction speed, magical ability, energy shields, maneuverability, size, intelligence and many others are covered by one system or another depending on the desired complexity level and the specific needs of the genre and setting.
Well, that's all that comes to mind right now. I'd like to know if I forgot to cover any important attributes in my list above. Speaking specifically about 15mm sci-fi systems, are there any other stats you think are important? Do you know of any systems that are a radical departure from the above? Do let me know.
Ta ta!
Friday, 2 March 2012
Game Theory, part 2: Dice Mechanics
I hope you enjoyed last week's ramblings, because here's some more. This time I want to share my thoughts on dice. Ah, dice. With a scant few exceptions, dice are at the very core of the games we hobbyists play and many of us develop a strange, sometimes obsessive fascination with them. For many, an agreeable dice mechanic is central to the enjoyment of any game system, and it's no wonder that game designers have come up with an endless variety of ways to add up the score. Why don't we look at some of them?
Roll under: This is one of the most basic dice mechanics of all. You roll one or more dice and succeed if you roll less than a certain score - typically less than the ability value of your model. This method is dead simple but annoys many people because lower scores are better, which can seem counter-intuitive. It is also very difficult to combine with opposed rolls or other variants and has limited space for applying modifiers unless really large scores (and suitably large dice) are used, such as percentile dice. Infinity does manage to pull it off, requiring your roll to be below your ability value, yet higher than your opponent's roll, but I feel this makes it somewhat too difficult to eyeball your odds on the fly.
Target number: In many ways, this is the exact opposite of roll under. You roll your dice, add the relevant ability score and whatever modifiers apply and check whether you beat a certain number. If the target number is always static, this method is mathematically the same as roll under, but more intuitive because high rolls are better. This is perhaps the most common dice mechanic, with the target number often depending on some characteristic of the target. Warmachine is a great example: an attacker rolls 2d6 and adds his attack value, and succeeds if he beats the target's defense value. Warhammer also uses target number rolls for most of its mechanics, although here nothing is added to the die score, which is directly compared to a target number that is usually given in a table and depends on the relative values of the attacker's and defender's abilities.
Dice pool: This method is reserved almost exclusively for roleplaying games as the large numbers of dice rolled per figure make it unfeasible for massed combat. In this system a model's ability value usually tells you how many dice to roll for a given check. In this case, the target number does not represent the value you need to beat with your dice total, but the number of dice that have rolled over a certain value. For example, you might roll four d6 and require at least two of them to score a 5 or better in order to succeed. Dice pools are fairly flexible because you can alter the number of dice being rolled, the type of dice, the number of successes required and the score needed on each die to count as a success.
Opposed rolls: As mentioned in my last post, this method has both players roll dice and apply whatever bonuses they have, and the player with the higher total score wins. In effect, your target number is equal to your opponent's score.
Of course all of the above options have numerous variants and nuances. Another way to differentiate a system is with different types of dice. The standard die types that should be familiar to anyone who has been in the hobby for any real length of time are the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20. We all probably feel most at home with the humble d6, since it comes with just about every classic board game from Snakes and Ladders to Monopoly. It is the most commonly available (although, to be honest, anyone reading a 15mm gaming blog should be more than resourceful enough to procure large quantities of the other types easily) and the easiest to read, even when rolled in large handfuls. You should not discount the other die types, however. The larger the die type, the wider the range of results it can provide (duh). This can allow for a greater range of possible ability scores on your models, as well as more modifiers. For example, a game system that uses only d6 cannot have a difference greater than 6 between the lowest possible ability score and the highest possible target number without making some models completely incapable of succeeding at some tasks.
It is also possible to use die types to adjust the odds of success instead of changing target numbers. In some games, die types are used in place of ability values themselves, an inept model having an attack stat of d6 and a skilled model having a d10, for example. On the 15mm scene, Tomorrow's War is the best known example of such a system.
Another aspect we can look at is the probability distribution of the die results. This is usually linear if you use single dice (the odds of rolling a 1 and a 6 on a d6 are identical as long as the dice are manufactured properly). If you add up the score of several dice together (such as in Warmachine, where you roll two or three d6 and add them up) you get a bell curve distribution, which means that average scores actually come up more often than low or high rolls. Another way to tweak distribution is to put the same score on several facings on one die; a d6 marked 1-2-2-3-3-4 instead of the usual 1-2-3-4-5-6 obviously rolls a 2 or 3 more often than a 1 or 4. Making custom dice might seem out of scope of the average gamer, but it's honestly fairly simple (I think I have a topic for another article right here!) You can tweak the results further with concepts such as critical hits and "exploding dice" (adding another die to the roll if the first roll scores a certain result) but keep in mind that these things can really complicate the math and make the game much harder to predict and balance.
So what are my personal preferences here? I have tried many systems and enjoyed most of them, but I find that I dislike rolling under, as I prefer high numbers to be better. But on the whole I would say that I do not care much for the exact method of rolling dice as long as the method chosen is consistent.
What do I mean? I'm saying that every die roll I am supposed to make during the course of the game should follow the same logic. If we're going for dice+value vs target number for attack rolls, that's what I want to use for morale tests, as well. Why are morale tests roll under? That's bad game design to me. Warhammer in particular has an obscene amount of different dice mechanics, so why don't we look at some of them?
1) Ranged attacks: straight d6 roll, target number is 7 minus attacker's ballistic Skill
2) Melee attacks and Wound rolls: straight d6 roll, target number is given on a table, depends on relative Weapon Skills (or Strength and Toughness) of the attacker and defender; but the two tables are different
3) Armour saves: straight d6 roll, target number is equal to model's Armour Save score
4) Armour penetration: d6 roll + strength of weapon, target number is vehicle's armour value
5) Difficult terrain roll: roll 2d6 and pick highest, result is the distance you can move
6) Leadership tests: straight 2d6 roll under Leadership value
7) Characteristic tests: straight d6 roll under characteristic value (Strength, Toughness, Initiative...)
8) Sweeping advance: d6+characteristic value opposed rolls
That's 8 just off the top of my head and not counting any faction-specific abilities. We have loads of different varieties of target number rolls, one opposed roll, one roll under, and three different distribution patterns (linear, bell curve and something weird for the difficult terrain roll). At least they all use d6.
I haven't encountered any other games that are quite so extreme but most do have at least a few different mechanics. Morale tests seem to be the most common offender, often having a mechanic of their own even in otherwise fairly consistent systems, such as Warmachine and Gruntz. In Infinity, armour saves work exactly opposite to every other roll for no good reason.
To conclude, regardless of your preferences, I suggest you be wary of games with many different types of dice rolls. It's a good sign that the core dice mechanic of the game is so bad that all the rest had to be tacked on to cover situations where the standard one just doesn't work. That's how I see it, at least. Feel free to share your opinions below, along with any other dice options I might have missed. Ta ta!
Roll under: This is one of the most basic dice mechanics of all. You roll one or more dice and succeed if you roll less than a certain score - typically less than the ability value of your model. This method is dead simple but annoys many people because lower scores are better, which can seem counter-intuitive. It is also very difficult to combine with opposed rolls or other variants and has limited space for applying modifiers unless really large scores (and suitably large dice) are used, such as percentile dice. Infinity does manage to pull it off, requiring your roll to be below your ability value, yet higher than your opponent's roll, but I feel this makes it somewhat too difficult to eyeball your odds on the fly.
Target number: In many ways, this is the exact opposite of roll under. You roll your dice, add the relevant ability score and whatever modifiers apply and check whether you beat a certain number. If the target number is always static, this method is mathematically the same as roll under, but more intuitive because high rolls are better. This is perhaps the most common dice mechanic, with the target number often depending on some characteristic of the target. Warmachine is a great example: an attacker rolls 2d6 and adds his attack value, and succeeds if he beats the target's defense value. Warhammer also uses target number rolls for most of its mechanics, although here nothing is added to the die score, which is directly compared to a target number that is usually given in a table and depends on the relative values of the attacker's and defender's abilities.
Dice pool: This method is reserved almost exclusively for roleplaying games as the large numbers of dice rolled per figure make it unfeasible for massed combat. In this system a model's ability value usually tells you how many dice to roll for a given check. In this case, the target number does not represent the value you need to beat with your dice total, but the number of dice that have rolled over a certain value. For example, you might roll four d6 and require at least two of them to score a 5 or better in order to succeed. Dice pools are fairly flexible because you can alter the number of dice being rolled, the type of dice, the number of successes required and the score needed on each die to count as a success.
Opposed rolls: As mentioned in my last post, this method has both players roll dice and apply whatever bonuses they have, and the player with the higher total score wins. In effect, your target number is equal to your opponent's score.
Of course all of the above options have numerous variants and nuances. Another way to differentiate a system is with different types of dice. The standard die types that should be familiar to anyone who has been in the hobby for any real length of time are the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20. We all probably feel most at home with the humble d6, since it comes with just about every classic board game from Snakes and Ladders to Monopoly. It is the most commonly available (although, to be honest, anyone reading a 15mm gaming blog should be more than resourceful enough to procure large quantities of the other types easily) and the easiest to read, even when rolled in large handfuls. You should not discount the other die types, however. The larger the die type, the wider the range of results it can provide (duh). This can allow for a greater range of possible ability scores on your models, as well as more modifiers. For example, a game system that uses only d6 cannot have a difference greater than 6 between the lowest possible ability score and the highest possible target number without making some models completely incapable of succeeding at some tasks.
It is also possible to use die types to adjust the odds of success instead of changing target numbers. In some games, die types are used in place of ability values themselves, an inept model having an attack stat of d6 and a skilled model having a d10, for example. On the 15mm scene, Tomorrow's War is the best known example of such a system.
Another aspect we can look at is the probability distribution of the die results. This is usually linear if you use single dice (the odds of rolling a 1 and a 6 on a d6 are identical as long as the dice are manufactured properly). If you add up the score of several dice together (such as in Warmachine, where you roll two or three d6 and add them up) you get a bell curve distribution, which means that average scores actually come up more often than low or high rolls. Another way to tweak distribution is to put the same score on several facings on one die; a d6 marked 1-2-2-3-3-4 instead of the usual 1-2-3-4-5-6 obviously rolls a 2 or 3 more often than a 1 or 4. Making custom dice might seem out of scope of the average gamer, but it's honestly fairly simple (I think I have a topic for another article right here!) You can tweak the results further with concepts such as critical hits and "exploding dice" (adding another die to the roll if the first roll scores a certain result) but keep in mind that these things can really complicate the math and make the game much harder to predict and balance.
So what are my personal preferences here? I have tried many systems and enjoyed most of them, but I find that I dislike rolling under, as I prefer high numbers to be better. But on the whole I would say that I do not care much for the exact method of rolling dice as long as the method chosen is consistent.
What do I mean? I'm saying that every die roll I am supposed to make during the course of the game should follow the same logic. If we're going for dice+value vs target number for attack rolls, that's what I want to use for morale tests, as well. Why are morale tests roll under? That's bad game design to me. Warhammer in particular has an obscene amount of different dice mechanics, so why don't we look at some of them?
1) Ranged attacks: straight d6 roll, target number is 7 minus attacker's ballistic Skill
2) Melee attacks and Wound rolls: straight d6 roll, target number is given on a table, depends on relative Weapon Skills (or Strength and Toughness) of the attacker and defender; but the two tables are different
3) Armour saves: straight d6 roll, target number is equal to model's Armour Save score
4) Armour penetration: d6 roll + strength of weapon, target number is vehicle's armour value
5) Difficult terrain roll: roll 2d6 and pick highest, result is the distance you can move
6) Leadership tests: straight 2d6 roll under Leadership value
7) Characteristic tests: straight d6 roll under characteristic value (Strength, Toughness, Initiative...)
8) Sweeping advance: d6+characteristic value opposed rolls
That's 8 just off the top of my head and not counting any faction-specific abilities. We have loads of different varieties of target number rolls, one opposed roll, one roll under, and three different distribution patterns (linear, bell curve and something weird for the difficult terrain roll). At least they all use d6.
I haven't encountered any other games that are quite so extreme but most do have at least a few different mechanics. Morale tests seem to be the most common offender, often having a mechanic of their own even in otherwise fairly consistent systems, such as Warmachine and Gruntz. In Infinity, armour saves work exactly opposite to every other roll for no good reason.
To conclude, regardless of your preferences, I suggest you be wary of games with many different types of dice rolls. It's a good sign that the core dice mechanic of the game is so bad that all the rest had to be tacked on to cover situations where the standard one just doesn't work. That's how I see it, at least. Feel free to share your opinions below, along with any other dice options I might have missed. Ta ta!
Friday, 24 February 2012
Game Theory, part 1: Play Flow
Another little thing I wanted to do here on the blog is talk about game rules and my quest for a 15mm system that would be just right for my own tastes. This article is the first in what I hope will become a regular series. It is intended to focus my own scattered thoughts as well as provide a good starting point for anyone else looking for (or designing!) their perfect system.
One of the most important aspects of a ruleset is certainly play flow. By this I mean the manner in which the rules allow for active player involvement and how that can shift from player to player. In other words, the subject covers such basic concepts as the turn sequence, the method of activating units, and perhaps the most critical question - how long do I have to stand there and watch my opponent take apart my army before I can do something about it?
First, let's look at the most basic mechanic of any system, turn order, and how it is handled in some popular games. There are two very common ways to handle turn order.
The first and by far the most common is the so-called IGOUGO system, in which each player takes a turn using all of his units while his opponent mostly just waits (and removes casualties). When the first player finishes his turn, the other player goes and uses all of his units. There are some obvious benefits to this way of doing things: for one thing, it's relatively easy to keep track of which units have already acted, but more importantly it allows a player to properly coordinate his units and follow a set strategy. The chief drawback seems to be that the other player can easily get bored and lose interest because the game simply isn't engaging him when it's not his turn.
Nuances are possible even within the IGOUGO system. Some games separate a player's turn into several phases and demand that, for example, all units move first, then fire, then fight in melee or whatever. The most prominent examples of these games are GW's Warhammer games and most of their offshots.
The other option is to have players do everything they want with unit at a time before moving on to the next. Typically, these games prohibit a player from going back to a previous unit once he has started to act with another. The most well-known examples here are Warmachine and Hordes from Privateer Press. This is also the default method used in Gruntz 15mm, although there are optional alternatives provided in the rules as well.
A popular alternative to IGOUGO is an alternating activation system. Here, each player only uses one of his units at a time (usually) and then the other player uses one of his. In most of these games, players have to keep track of which units have already acted and they cannot use any single unit again until any units remain that haven't acted yet. This kind of system keeps both players on their toes as play passes rapidly from one player to the other and the battlefield can shift unpredictably. It's also harder to keep track of things and use any coherent strategy as players constantly have to react to their opponents' moves. Popular games in this category include Uncharted Seas, Firestorm Armada and Dystopian Wars, all by Spartan Games, but also GW's Epic Armageddon system for 6mm scale gaming.
Besides these "big two" there are numerous others, less common ways to handle turn order. I'm going to lump some of them together in a broad category I will call reaction systems. These come in many varieties and have been gaining a lot of popularity lately. Their common theme is that, regardless of their basic turn mechanic, they place a strong emphasis on allowing a player to interrupt his opponent and react to his moves as they happen. The most widely known reaction game is undoubtedly Infinity by Corvus Belli. Infinity is a 28mm skirmish game using an IGOUGO system at its core, but every time a model does something on its turn, all enemy models that can see it can react with an action of their own. More relevant to the 15mm scene is Tomorrow's War by Ambush Alley Games, which goes even further. This system is also reminiscent of IGOUGO, but only one player actually takes a full turn while the other may only react (however, if my memory serves me, there are penalties for making successive reactions in Tomorrow's War, unlike in Infinity) and does not necessarily get a proper turn of his own. Then there are also the Chain Reaction system games published by Two Hour Wargames, including 5150, which I am not at all familiar with but judging by the name, they certainly belong here.
Having now familiarized ourselves at least somewhat with the different ways to handle turn order, we can start thinking about how we want play to flow in our game and which turn order method would be most conductive to that.
Do you want to allow each player to form and execute a grandiose plan, coordinating his entire army to attack together? IGOUGO is the best for this kind of thing, but keep in mind that this sword cuts both ways. Will you enjoy watching haplessly while your opponent does the same?
Do you want an unpredictable battlefield where you can still mostly do your own thing, but with less waiting between moves? Alternating activation could be good, as long as you know all your plans could be easily disrupted if your opponent makes a move you do not expect.
And what about reaction systems? Some of the versions I've seen seem like overkill to me, often allowing the reactive player to execute more moves and make more attacks than the player whose turn it actually is! But applied in moderation, reactions could provide a happy middle ground between IGOUGO and alternating activations by allowing the active player to make coordinated maneuvers while still giving his opponent a chance to respond in some way, thus keeping him engaged in the game even when it's not his turn.
There are a few other ways besides turn order to tweak play flow and keep an otherwise inactive player interested in what's going on when he isn't allowed to move figures. One of the core mechanics in Warhammer is the armour save. This is a last-chance roll to avoid damage to a figure, and is always made by the controller of the figure being attacked - so usually the passive player. But why does a roll that represents the chance of a blow being deflected by armour come after the roll made to see if the blow caused a wound? Shouldn't armour come first? The common, and very sensible, explanation for this is that armour saves come last to give the player the feeling that the fate of his troops is ultimately in his own hands. He gets a last chance to save his men, instead of watching the other person roll how many he kills. Statistically it doesn't matter which roll comes first, but the psychological difference is huge and despite being seen as an archaic mechanic by some, plenty of newer games have adopted armour saves (Flames of War and Infinity, for example), probably with much the same reasoning.
Another mechanic that has gained popularity in recent years is the opposed roll. Typically, this means that each player makes a die roll and adds the relevant ability value of his figure, and the player with the higher total score wins. This is an effective method to keep the passive player paying attention, but it can slow the game down and isn't always practical in games where several figures can attack together. It's certainly one to keep in mind if you want to do skirmish games with very few figures per side (Infinity uses opposed rolls almost exclusively, for example).
That's all I can think of so far. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on play flow, how other games handle it and your personal preferences.
ADDENDUM
Reader Noel reminded me about a few more options I had initially forgotten.
As he says, in USE ME models are activated in order of skill level. We can consider this an offshot version of initiative systems. In these, units are activated in a certain (predetermined or random) order. Another example I've seen is to assign a playing card to each unit and determine initiative order by drawing the unit cards from a deck that is reshuffled every turn. The end result feels somewhat like alternating activations, but you never know which (and whose) unit will come up next.
Another option that comes to mind could be called a shared phases turn. Here, both players move their units (either at the same time or one after another), then they both shoot, etc. In GZG's Full Thrust, for example, both players secretly write down the movement orders for their ships, then all ships are moved at once.
One of the most important aspects of a ruleset is certainly play flow. By this I mean the manner in which the rules allow for active player involvement and how that can shift from player to player. In other words, the subject covers such basic concepts as the turn sequence, the method of activating units, and perhaps the most critical question - how long do I have to stand there and watch my opponent take apart my army before I can do something about it?
First, let's look at the most basic mechanic of any system, turn order, and how it is handled in some popular games. There are two very common ways to handle turn order.
The first and by far the most common is the so-called IGOUGO system, in which each player takes a turn using all of his units while his opponent mostly just waits (and removes casualties). When the first player finishes his turn, the other player goes and uses all of his units. There are some obvious benefits to this way of doing things: for one thing, it's relatively easy to keep track of which units have already acted, but more importantly it allows a player to properly coordinate his units and follow a set strategy. The chief drawback seems to be that the other player can easily get bored and lose interest because the game simply isn't engaging him when it's not his turn.
Nuances are possible even within the IGOUGO system. Some games separate a player's turn into several phases and demand that, for example, all units move first, then fire, then fight in melee or whatever. The most prominent examples of these games are GW's Warhammer games and most of their offshots.
The other option is to have players do everything they want with unit at a time before moving on to the next. Typically, these games prohibit a player from going back to a previous unit once he has started to act with another. The most well-known examples here are Warmachine and Hordes from Privateer Press. This is also the default method used in Gruntz 15mm, although there are optional alternatives provided in the rules as well.
A popular alternative to IGOUGO is an alternating activation system. Here, each player only uses one of his units at a time (usually) and then the other player uses one of his. In most of these games, players have to keep track of which units have already acted and they cannot use any single unit again until any units remain that haven't acted yet. This kind of system keeps both players on their toes as play passes rapidly from one player to the other and the battlefield can shift unpredictably. It's also harder to keep track of things and use any coherent strategy as players constantly have to react to their opponents' moves. Popular games in this category include Uncharted Seas, Firestorm Armada and Dystopian Wars, all by Spartan Games, but also GW's Epic Armageddon system for 6mm scale gaming.
Besides these "big two" there are numerous others, less common ways to handle turn order. I'm going to lump some of them together in a broad category I will call reaction systems. These come in many varieties and have been gaining a lot of popularity lately. Their common theme is that, regardless of their basic turn mechanic, they place a strong emphasis on allowing a player to interrupt his opponent and react to his moves as they happen. The most widely known reaction game is undoubtedly Infinity by Corvus Belli. Infinity is a 28mm skirmish game using an IGOUGO system at its core, but every time a model does something on its turn, all enemy models that can see it can react with an action of their own. More relevant to the 15mm scene is Tomorrow's War by Ambush Alley Games, which goes even further. This system is also reminiscent of IGOUGO, but only one player actually takes a full turn while the other may only react (however, if my memory serves me, there are penalties for making successive reactions in Tomorrow's War, unlike in Infinity) and does not necessarily get a proper turn of his own. Then there are also the Chain Reaction system games published by Two Hour Wargames, including 5150, which I am not at all familiar with but judging by the name, they certainly belong here.
Having now familiarized ourselves at least somewhat with the different ways to handle turn order, we can start thinking about how we want play to flow in our game and which turn order method would be most conductive to that.
Do you want to allow each player to form and execute a grandiose plan, coordinating his entire army to attack together? IGOUGO is the best for this kind of thing, but keep in mind that this sword cuts both ways. Will you enjoy watching haplessly while your opponent does the same?
Do you want an unpredictable battlefield where you can still mostly do your own thing, but with less waiting between moves? Alternating activation could be good, as long as you know all your plans could be easily disrupted if your opponent makes a move you do not expect.
And what about reaction systems? Some of the versions I've seen seem like overkill to me, often allowing the reactive player to execute more moves and make more attacks than the player whose turn it actually is! But applied in moderation, reactions could provide a happy middle ground between IGOUGO and alternating activations by allowing the active player to make coordinated maneuvers while still giving his opponent a chance to respond in some way, thus keeping him engaged in the game even when it's not his turn.
There are a few other ways besides turn order to tweak play flow and keep an otherwise inactive player interested in what's going on when he isn't allowed to move figures. One of the core mechanics in Warhammer is the armour save. This is a last-chance roll to avoid damage to a figure, and is always made by the controller of the figure being attacked - so usually the passive player. But why does a roll that represents the chance of a blow being deflected by armour come after the roll made to see if the blow caused a wound? Shouldn't armour come first? The common, and very sensible, explanation for this is that armour saves come last to give the player the feeling that the fate of his troops is ultimately in his own hands. He gets a last chance to save his men, instead of watching the other person roll how many he kills. Statistically it doesn't matter which roll comes first, but the psychological difference is huge and despite being seen as an archaic mechanic by some, plenty of newer games have adopted armour saves (Flames of War and Infinity, for example), probably with much the same reasoning.
Another mechanic that has gained popularity in recent years is the opposed roll. Typically, this means that each player makes a die roll and adds the relevant ability value of his figure, and the player with the higher total score wins. This is an effective method to keep the passive player paying attention, but it can slow the game down and isn't always practical in games where several figures can attack together. It's certainly one to keep in mind if you want to do skirmish games with very few figures per side (Infinity uses opposed rolls almost exclusively, for example).
That's all I can think of so far. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on play flow, how other games handle it and your personal preferences.
ADDENDUM
Reader Noel reminded me about a few more options I had initially forgotten.
As he says, in USE ME models are activated in order of skill level. We can consider this an offshot version of initiative systems. In these, units are activated in a certain (predetermined or random) order. Another example I've seen is to assign a playing card to each unit and determine initiative order by drawing the unit cards from a deck that is reshuffled every turn. The end result feels somewhat like alternating activations, but you never know which (and whose) unit will come up next.
Another option that comes to mind could be called a shared phases turn. Here, both players move their units (either at the same time or one after another), then they both shoot, etc. In GZG's Full Thrust, for example, both players secretly write down the movement orders for their ships, then all ships are moved at once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)