All Sizzle and No Stakes

[jon_1066]

Still not seeing that quite frankly either.  How does a rule set help foster a community beyond being a rule set that is accessible and popular?

In my experience I have two groups I game with - my friends I started out with and those I have joined in order to play.

So the first lot were who I was already friends with as a kid and we developed a love of mini games together.  Since we have all moved apart, lost touch, etc, etc, I have joined a club that exists to play games.  The rules themselves don't foster that community though other than by simply existing.  The prime motivation for everyone at the club is to play spectacular looking games with interesting scenarios.  The game is the thing but it is a means to fight a battle, hypothetical or historical.  So the challenge of pitting your wits against an opponent, recreating history, etc. The games are challenging enough to sustain repeated playing and there are certainly plenty of different games to try and plenty of different periods and settings to game.

It's a weird sort of take - to say that mini games are basically not very good and can't sustain repeated playing as a game in and of itself.  The beauty of mini games is the infinite variety of scenarios you can develop for them.  Each game can be different and given different forces, or objectives or terrain you can get very different battles developing.

[fred]

Very much agree with you Jon

I’d also add it may be something of a bloke thing, that getting together to do something (like play a wargame) seems to be the preferred way of socially interacting, rather than just getting together for the social interaction. And I get this is a broad generalisation!

[Easy E]

It's a weird sort of take - to say that mini games are basically not very good and can't sustain repeated playing as a game in and of itself.  The beauty of mini games is the infinite variety of scenarios you can develop for them.  Each game can be different and given different forces, or objectives or terrain you can get very different battles developing.

Yes, it is a weird sort of take, but I see it play out all the time.  Games get played a handful of times and then get shelved or replaced with a different game.  The interest in the game has worn thin.  Players will say, "They are no longer fun."  However, that is not helpful as no one has the same definition of fun, so how should a designer think about.  One path is to think about the Stakes of the game.   

I think you hit on some key things a Game Design CAN make sure a game has to facilitate Community and you lay some out in the quote above:

1. Interesting force selection
2. Interesting Objectives
3. Interesting terrain placement/interactions

I would argue there are more, but those are the ones in your post.  So, you see the basic rules aren't good enough to keep you playing.  You are looking for a spectacle, and that needs more than just the 4Ms of rules mechanics.  It needs to facilitate that spectacle and keep the game itself fresh with army lists, scenarios and objectives.  The 'Grave series of games is a great example, the core basic rules are not enough to keep it going, they are constantly dripping in new content, scenarios, etc. to keep the game engaging.  Some games only have a handful of scenarios.  I have read many rules systems with 3 or fewer scenarios in the core rules themselves.  I see that as a mistake. 

Now, the idea of Stakes is blurring a lot with the concept of Replayability.  To get back to the core idea.  Winning and losing and playing the game to play the game have a short shelf life because those pieces alone are not enough.  They are not inherently engaging.  There are no stakes to it.  What does it matter if you win today or lose today?  It doesn't.  Stakes have to be artificially created by the game, and the two best ways to do that are to create tools for building a community or a campaign around the game. 

What are these tools?  Some random brainstorms that help a game create a community:

1. Tournament guidelines/Tourney scenario
2. Campaign rules
3. Multiple scenarios
4. Multiple deployment methods
5. Wide array of army lists/factions/units
6. Wide array of terrain placement and interaction rules
7. Abilities for players to customize their game experience (I.e. Assigning keywords, Unit selection, Unit creation, etc.)

Basically, the ruleset has to create space for a community to develop.  What creates a community?  You need things players can engage with when they ARE NOT playing the game.  Battletech, D&D, Magic, and Warhammer excel at this.

Anyway, I appreciate this conversation as it is really getting my mental wheels moving when it comes to designing "better" games.

 

[jon_1066]

The last thing I would want is a rule set that is continually changing with added rules, expansions, army lists (yuck), key words and the like.  I much prefer to find a historical battle, produce the OOBs and terrain map and re fight it.  If you can find the essence of the battle then it doesn't matter what rules you use if they are half decent then you can create the same tactical decisions for the players their contemporaries faced.

Perhaps this is a factor of historical gaming vs fantasy/sci fi?

In historical gaming all that stuff is basically already out there.  Want a scenario then go read a book about a war or campaign or a unit history or an after action report.  The scenarios don't need to be in the rules because they exist in and of themselves from history.  Just translate it to whatever rules you are playing and have at it.

[Easy E]

The last thing I would want is a rule set that is continually changing with added rules, expansions, army lists (yuck), key words and the like. 

On this we are 100% in agreement!  Yuck.   

Perhaps historical vs. sci/fi/fantasy is a big difference point.  A great observation. 

[fred]

Whilst lots of gamers say they are happy with a rule set that is once and done, the market would suggest that there are many who like a new thing, whether its a new version, a new codex, a scenario supplement etc.

There are obvious Fantasy and Sci Fi examples (Warhammer, 40k, Frostgrave) but there are historical ones too (Flames of War, Bolt Action, WAB)

[Elbows]

Like most people I don't mind a 2nd or 3rd edition of a game, if it means the game is streamlined, errata/errors fixed...nicer publication or content quality.

I wouldn't confuse that with market leading stuff like 40K.  In that instance it's a matter of the rules suck...and each new edition is just the customers thinking "Maybe this time they fixed it, maybe this time it's good...".

I'd even argue the poor rules are done intentionally to keep that addictive mindset present in the customer base.

[fred]

I’m not sure the 40k rules per se are rubbish - but the constant Codex creep and complex interactions of all the special rules is definitely a problem.

I think 40k trades a lot on nostalgia - several of my gaming group have been playing 40k all their lives (so 40 years now) and love the lore and setting and all the detail that comes with it. They also have big armies so want to be able to use them - but there is definitely a hope with each new iteration of the rules.

[carlos marighela]

Like most people I don't mind a 2nd or 3rd edition of a game, if it means the game is streamlined, errata/errors fixed...nicer publication or content quality.

I wouldn't confuse that with market leading stuff like 40K.  In that instance it's an obviously cynical attempt to squeeze more money out of a declining market.

Fixed that for you.

I quite agree. Updates and revisions are welcome if they add something, like streamlining the mechanics. Bloated iterations like  Empire v. 364 not so much. Of course, very occasionally one sees 'Second Editions' coming hot on the heels of the first and you wonder why the revisions could not have been taken care of with a bit more thought, a bit more play testing and/or better editing in the first place.

[Belligerentparrot]

Like most people I don't mind a 2nd or 3rd edition of a game, if it means the game is streamlined, errata/errors fixed...nicer publication or content quality.

I wouldn't confuse that with market leading stuff like 40K.  In that instance it's a matter of the rules suck...and each new edition is just the customers thinking "Maybe this time they fixed it, maybe this time it's good...".

I'd even argue the poor rules are done intentionally to keep that addictive mindset present in the customer base.

Like Fred, I'm not sure about this. For the tournament players, the new rules and codexes seem to function more like new core sets/expansions in MtG's Standard format (GW has watched and learnt there I think) - the meta-game changes with each update, and this kind of player, at least in my experience, typically enjoys trying to stay on top of that. They wouldn't be so keen to play if that didn't happen, just like the MtG Standard folk, again in my experience, see it as superior to the more stable MtG formats.

Outside that, as Fred says, it is the love of the fluff that seems to do a lot of the work. Most of the folk I know who spend big on GW stuff are quite happy to skip an edition or more of the rules if they see no improvement, and keep playing the version they like most. But they'll keep buying the miniatures (and the rulebooks when the release boxes are too shiny to resist, ha!) Where the rules work for them is in the granularity more than gameplay as such: if you're into the fluff then chances are you want your little dude's chainfist to do something (slightly  ) different to your other little dude's power fist to your other little dude's lighting claw etc etc list goes on forever. No sane set of alternative rules gives them that, does it?

Both points I hope speak to Mr E's original post. These are the stakes GW players often seem to be invested in, but the rules themselves are largely irrelevant - which makes me wonder whether rulesets can really deliver stakes.

[Easy E]

Both points I hope speak to Mr E's original post. These are the stakes GW players often seem to be invested in, but the rules themselves are largely irrelevant - which makes me wonder whether rulesets can really deliver stakes.

Perhaps they can't deliver stakes on their own.  Hence, the exploration on the topic, what are the "Stakes" in wargames and can a rule set provide them? 

I honestly am not sure of the answer.....

[carlos marighela]

A former house mate had the answer to that. Every year he would stage a big, multi-player, kill and swill game (IIRC we mostly used a modified version of  On to Richmond for rules).

Cause casulaties to an enemy unit and knock back a shot. It was like drink along with Dallas but with toy soldiers. Not only were the stakes readily apparent, it contained a natural scenario balancing mechanism.