Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Easy E on March 24, 2023, 06:39:45 PM
-
Greetings all,
I more I try to figure out what people like to play, the more I realize that I have no idea what people like to play!
That being said, what are the top 3 things that attract you to a rule system. That EXCLUDES things like the model line, the local player base, etc. I am wondering what do you see in a rule set itself, that makes you think..... Hmmmm, I think I want to give that a whirl?.... let's try to keep it downt o three things.
For me, I think they are:
1. Scale and model agnostic because I all ready have a lot of models and I am NOT rebasing them to play.
2. No casualty removal. I spent a long time painting these, I want to see them on the table.
3. Opposed dice pools. I like rolling decent amount of dice, but not obscene amounts; and I like being able to do something when the other player is doing stuff.
Before, I used to put a lot of stock in activation systems as well, but my interest in that has died down a lot lately.
How about you?
-
1. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!!!!!!
2. No saving throws - it just slows down the action, incorporate into casualties. I like to use casualty figures so I don't have an issue with casualty removal but see how its absence can speed play which is a good thing.
3. Minimal to zero use of cards of any kind (though I do use some systems with them) combined with minimal use of dice, I absolutely LOATHE buckets of dice rolling. (And if that counts as two responses you can refund what you paid me to participate in your 'survey'! lol )
And just because it matters - well organized rules that make it easy to reference and presented in a logical manner. And, ESSENTIAL, a minimalist but practical Quick Reference Sheet. (Uh-oh, do the extra responses mean I owe you a multiple of what you paid me? :D )
-
Fun, and the assumption that the players are going to be emotionally mature friends and not pettifogging loophole-seeking babies. I do like to win, but losing a really enjoyable game can be almost as good.
I know there are quite a lot of people who enjoy competitive tournament play, but it turns me right off. A real red flag for me is a system that prioritizes micro-managed "faction" building with oodles of special rules for any given army.
That doesn't much address the mechanics of rules sets I know, but there it is.
-
The number of people near me that play it.
Or better said: the ease with which I can get games done.
-
1. simplicity and fun!
2. no meta games (I’m looking at you, Warhammer magic!), no special dice, no cards (at maximum a standard skat or poker deck), not too many tokens.
3. the game should be slightly unpredictable, tell a story, be fun for both/all players. If I want chess, I play go!
-
1) Can I play this game with models already in my collection?
2) Does the rule set reasonably cover all the aspects of the period/war it is written for (I don't have to 100% like how a rule set deals with specific aspects of warfare but there should be a reasonable attempt to model them on the table).
3) I don't want to see a myriad of different mechanics being used. IE. draw cards for activation, roll low on 2D6 for moral, roll high on XD10 for melee, consult the flight of birds for random movement, etc..
-
Things that attract me:
General Principal: "Rules are for the advice of wise men and the adherence of fools" - attributed to Douglas Bader
1. Easy to learn, hard to master.
2. Either innovative mechanisms or interesting takes on old ones - otherwise why change from the rules I already use?
3. Modelling a genre/ period/ theatre I'm interested in in a way I find believable
Three things I don't care about:
1. Base Sizes - if the rule suggestions don't suit I change the rules. Hence my Strength and Honour stuff is based on a 50mm grid not a 75mm one and bases are 80x40mm not 120x60mm
2. Specified figures - I use whatever figures I want. Hence my having a Warmaster Lizardman that contains a Nazgûl, two Mûmakil and a couple of flocks of crebain.
3. Others having the rules/ armies/ whatever. I'm happy to play solo if I can't find any other opponent
-
1) Accuracy. I am particularly turned off by stupid rationalisations ("No distinction is made between lead and stone sling shot, since the greater availability of the latter cancels out range and penetration advantages, and crack ancient slingers went to the trouble and expense of metal ammunition only because they were bored in the evenings"; likewise heavier bombards, bigger shields...), and by decisions that history takes second place to dogma ("Sengoku troops did not use pikes, and the innumerable pictures and examples saying otherwise are in our index of forbidden books").
2) Understanding of the mathematics involved. If I'm instructed to subtract a negative number from the melee score of the enemy facing deep pike blocks, guaranteeing that my massive Swiss block can be thumped by a line of levied skirmishers in good going, I lose confidence in the set I'm looking at. Likewise with one that requires me to roll two D6s, with doubles equaling a special result (instead of just rolling for a 6, which gives exactly the same odds at less trouble).
3) Intelligibility. OK, not everyone can write a grammatical sentence, punctuate to clarify meanings, or turn on spell checker (it seems). But if you want me to pay for a rule set, get the dam' thing edited by someone who can read and write. I might add that pedantically using Latin terms when there are English ones available moves from irritating to maddening if the writer gets the Latin wrong as well.
4) Attention to historical records. Many of us rapidly gave up on DBM when we realised that Caesar's battles, using the right troops and the same tactics, led to reliable Roman defeats. I've lost count of the number of horse and musket rulesets where advancing assured one of annihilation, and cavalry were either utterly useless cannon-fodder or scythes in a field of ripe corn.
5) Economy of equipment. If two normal dice and one D20 can't handle it, there's something wrong with the system. A ruler, preferably using both major systems (and not paces!) and perhaps a protractor should be enough in the line of playing aids.
6) At most one simple army or fleet list, and no writing down minute damage effects. Lots of little dice all over the table are an unacceptable detraction from the spectacle.
7) Practical simplicity. I think the "hit-wound-save" system is a sign of madness, equivalent to describing respiration as "breathe in - now inhale - now draw oxygen into your lungs...".
8 ) If I can't do Gaugamela or Leuthen in three hours with an experienced opponent, that set of rules is on its way out.
I have spoken.
-
1. It's got to be rules lite
2. Well written is important as I find it hard to grok otherwise
3. Mechanics that are both simple and interesting
All that said I probably won't even look at a ruleset in a genre I'm not interested in and I'm far more likely to pay attention if it's a niche for which I don't already have a ruleset I love.
-
No cards!
Figure removal. Can't stand suppression rules. I am here to kill things.
Short rules. No 40-60 pages of rules
-
1/ Lots of charts and tables.
2/ Detailed rules for every concievable eventuality.
3/ Written orders and rosters for casualties in numbers of men, not figures.
4/ None of this "fun" malarky, wargaming is a serious pastime for serious people!.
;)
-
Is there someone else I can play it with?
Is it in an era I'm interested in?
Can I get the figures for it easily? Can I get them already painted?
Are the rules well laid out in a book (I do not want to print out an entire rule book from PDF).
No area templates in game- I should not need to keep units 2" apart to avoid some random explosion. No angles on "you cannot fire here".
Can the non-active player do something during the other players turn? IE- if it is not my turn, is there any point to be being at the table? I'd much prefer having some activity to do during it.
Are there YouTube video's showing me how to play. Yes, ALL THE RULES.
Are the army lists varied and able to give many options in building the army so I can play the army and style I like?
Can I build an army using excel or online web page and print it on one page.
A minimum of counters on the table, but some are ok - orders and 1(!) unit condition is fine.
Not too many dice to roll per action - more than 6 or so is too much to count.
Avoid the use of cards ideally - I shouldn't have to play a game of poker or Magic the Gathering in my wargame.
Avoid off board templates for orders- I should not need a separate table for that.
Are these in built solo rules?
Are there campaign rules, and do they allow the loser of the battle to recover in the next one (because every campaign rules I see seems to end in a deathball/death spiral).
-
1. Fun
I mean this is kind of obvious, and also hugely subjective - and that's why we have so many different games. Some people want simulations, some people want absurdity, some people want grime, some people want 'Hollywood' portrayals of stuff, etc. It's all meaningless if you don't genuinely enjoy the game. I see way too many people playing a game because they're invested in it...but have long since stopped having actual fun playing it. A lot of people trick themselves into thinking they're enjoying a game, when really they enjoy all the ancillary things surrounding it - but not playing the actual game. So, if you're not genuinely smiling, laughing, having a good time...why bother? Now, that "fun" can be a very solemn, stern, concentrated effort during a serious simulation...but you're still having fun? Good.
2. Non-Manipulative Marketing/Design
Some people may get up in arms over this, but I despise modern sales tactics/methods of "keeping" a customer. I also understand there are some people who ignore this, or pretend it doesn't exist, but all of the modern sales tactics will keep me from buying into a game instantly. Limited releases, the use of FOMO, new editions every three years, power creep to "sell" newest product, manipulative rules engineering, "buy this to get that", etc. Now obviously the biggest offenders here are companies like Games Workshop, Fantasy Flight, Hasbro (with D&D), etc. I will never play a game which is designed from the ground up to churn out purchases/money rather than deliver a solid, reliable, enjoyable game. The tactics exist because obviously it works. I have friends who won't blush at spending $500 on Warhammer models to replace the $500 worth of models they bought six months ago. I don't begrudge the companies, it's a free world. I just will not partake in the kind of manipulative game design stuff.
3. Cost.
As an adult, I have disposable income and can "afford" any game I've encountered, even the ridiculously priced ones. However, that doesn't mean they're "worth" it to me. People who disagree will use the argument 'oh so you can't afford...'. Oh, I can afford - but I won't afford. There are plenty of games or books or miniatures which simply aren't worth the cost to me. I'm not a bargain bin gamer - I spend a lot of money on gaming stuff (a lot...), but paying $45 for a single plastic 28/32mm miniature? Get stuffed. You're out of your god damn mind. So while price is not a big deal to me, you can easily ensure I'll never buy your product if you have stupid prices. I don't care how/why you justify them - as a consumer I look solely at the value of what I'm getting. "It's limited edition..." - don't care, it's still a small plastic figurine.
Bonus 4. Full Project Value
When I begin a gaming project I tend to go pretty hard. This means fully painted large range of miniatures, fully finished terrain, probably several environments, neoprene gaming mats, hills, trees, storage containers, custom dice, etc. etc. etc. I don't dabble in games. So while I think a ton of other genres, concepts, theatres would be cool --- I always ask myself "Am I willing to invest hundreds of hours and potentially many hundreds of dollars into doing this...". It helps keep me from diving into "here and now" projects that I know I'll lose interest in. So it has to be something I'm dead serious about collecting/building/painting. I've learned this the hard way from years of having a dozen small projects I was never going to finish. Now I'm much more disciplined.
-
This is a really good question and these are some really good answer.
-
1. Small Playing Area
2' x 2' max. Only have a 3' x 3' table and I don't wanna take up the whole area with a game. I like there to be room for rulebooks, phones and casualties on the same table.
2. Low Model Count
3-5 per side? Yes please! I'm all about characters, not armies.
3. Rules Light
Don't have a lot of free time or headspace... but no rules gaps. The system should be light, but watertight.
I despise modern sales tactics/methods of "keeping" a customer. I also understand there are some people who ignore this, or pretend it doesn't exist, but all of the modern sales tactics will keep me from buying into a game instantly. Limited releases, the use of FOMO, new editions every three years, power creep to "sell" newest product, manipulative rules engineering, "buy this to get that", etc. Now obviously the biggest offenders here are companies like Games Workshop, Fantasy Flight, Hasbro (with D&D), etc. I will never play a game which is designed from the ground up to churn out purchases/money rather than deliver a solid, reliable, enjoyable game. The tactics exist because obviously it works. I have friends who won't blush at spending $500 on Warhammer models to replace the $500 worth of models they bought six months ago. I don't begrudge the companies, it's a free world. I just will not partake in the kind of manipulative game design stuff.
Absolutely spot-on. I agree with every word of this.
-
1. FUN
2. FUN
3. FUN
If it ain’t fun, why play it ?
You only live once, so why waste your time playing boring rules ?
If you meet with mates, roll some dice, move some nice figures, and the banter flows, then that’s a winning set of rules.
-
Good syntax, grammar and punctuation or at least a decent stab at them.
A logical flow to the concepts espoused and written in a lucid and concise manner.
Illustrative examples are always nice as are neat diagrams, where required.
I don't want my rules to read like Habermas and nor do I want them to read like Phil Barker.
-
I don't want my rules to read like Habermas and nor do I want them to read like Phil Barker.
lol
Two examples with a deserved ill reputation!
-
Interesting to see what others are looking for. For me, I want:
- To be involved at all times. I want a reason to be at the table during the whole game. The most boring games I have played were ones where one side moved all their figures and attacked with them, and then the other side does the same. Yawn! So, I want opposed die rolls, alternating activations, and similar mechanisms that give me something to do while my opponent is destroying me.
- A sense of control over my fate, or at least the illusion of that control. This goes back to opposed die rolls or to hit and saving rolls. I want to feel that I had a chance to stop my opponent, so systems that subsume all combat into a single die roll made by my opponent don't do it for me.
- Command friction. This is a bit of a contradiction with point 2, but I love systems that limit what you can do and when you can do it, and find those where you are an omnipotent general whose orders are instantly obeyed boring. I like dicing to see if I can persuade my troops to do what I want them to do. Something like the THW reaction system works very well for me, as units react to what happens without direct input from me. Also the system in Impetus where both players nominate a command and roll to see who will get to activate theirs is one I enjoy. Related to this is the desire to have one specific role in the game. If I am playing a massed battle, I want to feel like I am the general, and not also every single battalion commander on the field of battle, so the command system should take care of the battalion commanders' actions and I can focus on the generalling.
- The game should fire my imagination. A game that occurs only on the tabletop is a bit sterile. I want to feel the excitement of the story unfolding in my head too.
-
Interesting to see what others are looking for. For me, I want:
- To be involved at all times. I want a reason to be at the table during the whole game. The most boring games I have played were ones where one side moved all their figures and attacked with them, and then the other side does the same. Yawn! So, I want opposed die rolls, alternating activations, and similar mechanisms that give me something to do while my opponent is destroying me.
- A sense of control over my fate, or at least the illusion of that control. This goes back to opposed die rolls or to hit and saving rolls. I want to feel that I had a chance to stop my opponent, so systems that subsume all combat into a single die roll made by my opponent don't do it for me.
- Command friction. This is a bit of a contradiction with point 2, but I love systems that limit what you can do and when you can do it, and find those where you are an omnipotent general whose orders are instantly obeyed boring. I like dicing to see if I can persuade my troops to do what I want them to do. Something like the THW reaction system works very well for me, as units react to what happens without direct input from me. Also the system in Impetus where both players nominate a command and roll to see who will get to activate theirs is one I enjoy. Related to this is the desire to have one specific role in the game. If I am playing a massed battle, I want to feel like I am the general, and not also every single battalion commander on the field of battle, so the command system should take care of the battalion commanders' actions and I can focus on the generalling.
- The game should fire my imagination. A game that occurs only on the tabletop is a bit sterile. I want to feel the excitement of the story unfolding in my head too.
Great list - the one I would add is that the rules have to give the feel of the period. This is very hard to quantify, but a WWII game needs to feel like its set in WWII and what happens feels like it focuses on what you read about WWII and how weapons and troops worked in WWII. And this applies for each and every period (including fantasy and Sci fi).
-
Are the rules internally consistent with what they are trying to portray? So does the ground scale, unit footprint and ranges make sense?
Can I use them to fight battles I'm interested in? If I want to recreate the battles of the 1809 Danube campaign then I'm going to need large scale rules so I'm not interested in units forming square when I want to recreate Wagram.
Will the rules lead to a result in a reasonable length of time? I don't want to spend 8 hours fighting something that took 30 minute in real life.
-
Will the rules lead to a result in a reasonable length of time? I don't want to spend 8 hours fighting something that took 30 minute in real life.
Ah, a man clearly scarred by playing Empire or possibly Harpoon. lol
-
I am slightly taken aback by the number of people responding to this post who seem to want to play games with half a dozen figures on a tea tray using a set of rules written on the back of a post card.
I want rules that will scale up to the point where I can play games with thousands of figures on a ballroom floor with a rule book thick enough to allow me the option of beating the author to death with it if the rules significantly disappoint! Assuming I could ever find the time, terrain, painted miniatures and opponents to stage such a thing.
OK, so more than a little hyperbole, but am I the only megalomaniac gamer on this forum?
-
While I have no interest in 1,000's of figures - I am definitely surprised at how diverse peoples' interests are.
Almost every post I read I think "Yeah, he would never buy my games..." lol
It does make sense though, as listening to varying wargaming podcasts I often think 'that sounds like a game I have zero interest in...' ---- but the game exists so obviously somewhere someone wants to play it. Back when I used to sell cars, many moons ago, we had the phrase 'an ass for every seat'. I think the huge variety of stuff people here game and enjoy is probably the strength of Lead Adventure. You need only look at the "Post a Picture of the Last Game You Played" thread to see how much stuff people here play.
-
That is why I started this thread knowing that I have no idea what people like to play.
-
I am slightly taken aback by the number of people responding to this post who seem to want to play games with half a dozen figures on a tea tray using a set of rules written on the back of a post card.
I want rules that will scale up to the point where I can play games with thousands of figures on a ballroom floor with a rule book thick enough to allow me the option of beating the author to death with it if the rules significantly disappoint! Assuming I could ever find the time, terrain, painted miniatures and opponents to stage such a thing.
OK, so more than a little hyperbole, but am I the only megalomaniac gamer on this forum?
I think in part this is the demographic of LAF - there is a definite preference to skirmish games here (note preference not exclusivity, there are examples of big games on LAF too)
I very much want to be able to play big games with lots of figures and lots of players - and this needs a set of rules that is geared to this. One of my worse recentish gaming experience was a giant Warhammer game that looked absolutely splendid but was a chore to play, for two reasons, one tactically it was pretty much attackers walk towards the defenders, secondly the magic phase took 30-45mins each turn, and barely anything happened at the end of it.
Compare this to Warmaster games where there were sweeping movements, dogged defences, continual engagement of players - all on the same sized table with the same number of players in the same time!
-
Great discussion!
One observation I'd make is that "miniature agnostic" is a bit of a strange concept. It's almost unnecessary because hardly any games (if any) aren't miniature agnostic. Things like Malifaux might get close, but even then, you can match cards up with alternative miniatures easily enough. When Warhammer Underworld came out, we played it with friends and substituted ogres for Stormcast from the off (we had painted ogres; the Stormcast never got painted); it worked perfectly well. So I think non-miniatures-agnostic games are largely a manufacturer's myth!
The one thing that's really important is basing; lots of games aren't basing agnostic. That doesn't mean you can't play those games with different base sizes to the prescribed ones, but either you'll have to change the bases of all units proportionately or you'll be changing the game quite fundamentally.
As an illustration, Hordes of the Thing/DBA or Warnaster can work with elements of just about any size (with movement rates and table size adjusted), but won't work if players bring elements with different frontages. By contrast, a 'base-agnostic' game like Dragon Rampant or Of Armies and Hordes will work just fine if players turn up with radically different basing systems.
I suppose one could see WYSIWYG as a sort of anti-agnosticism when it comes to miniatures. But it's more of a player-agreement point than a real
thing like basing. Games like Pulp Alley gleefully flout WYSIWYG and are the none the worse for it. But it can be a useful principle for keeping more equipment-centric games clean and clear.
These are my preferences:
1. Short 'time to table'
I like games where you can decide to play and be playing in five minutes flat. Hordes of the Things/DBA, Saga, Song of Blades and Heroes, Battlesworn and the Rampant series all fall into this category. If you and an opponent want a game, you can stat up your army or warband in a minute or two and have the game on the table. That means many more games played.
I'd identify a protracted time to table as the main factor in my not playing some games I really love: Rogue Planet, Mayhem and Pulp Alley among them. None of those games are bad in that respect, really, but I'd play much more of all of them if statting things up were a bit quicker.
In that regard, I'd point out that online army builders can make a real difference. We've played lots of Kings of War over the past year because the army builders nudge it into having a short time to table. If Mayhem had the same, I'd play much more of it. Song of Blades and Heroes is an example of a game that might take longer than five minutes with pen and paper (though the extensive troop lists at the back of the book offset this), but the online warband builder means that it's almost instant.
2. Dynamism
I like games where you get a real sense of movement. Song of Blades and its ilk score very highly here: figures can sweep across the table if they have sufficient activations. Mayhem's great here too: you can burn your command points to have your fast cavalry sweep down the flank like wildfire. Rogue Planet steps it up even further with its collisions and throwing of things into other things. Gaslands is great at this too. Song of Blades is dynamic in a different way too: you get knockdowns and pushbacks and temporary routs. I've been gearing up to play Mordheim for a while; it looks like a game that utilises the long Warhammer statline to offer a dynamism that the parent game lacked.
3. Speed of play
In the past, I've had echoed Ruarigh in wanting to be involved throughout my opponent's turn. But fast-play IGOUGO games like Kings of War and Book of War have convinced me that constant involvement isn't essential so long as your turn comes round quickly. Chess is a good example here, actually, and chess clocks make the likes of KoW even better.
I very much want to be able to play big games with lots of figures and lots of players - and this needs a set of rules that is geared to this. One of my worse recentish gaming experience was a giant Warhammer game that looked absolutely splendid but was a chore to play, for two reasons, one tactically it was pretty much attackers walk towards the defenders, secondly the magic phase took 30-45mins each turn, and barely anything happened at the end of it.
If I were allowed a fourth, I'd say magic that's (a) not overpowering and (b) fully integrated in the normal turn: Kings of War, HOTT and Song of Blades have this sorted. Classic Warhammer much less so - which is why my childhood friends and I more or less banned if from our games!
-
I very much want to be able to play big games with lots of figures and lots of players - and this needs a set of rules that is geared to this. One of my worse recentish gaming experience was a giant Warhammer game that looked absolutely splendid but was a chore to play, for two reasons, one tactically it was pretty much attackers walk towards the defenders, secondly the magic phase took 30-45mins each turn, and barely anything happened at the end of it.
Compare this to Warmaster games where there were sweeping movements, dogged defences, continual engagement of players - all on the same sized table with the same number of players in the same time!
Metagames, like the Warhammer/40k Magick/Psionic phase, are a nogo for me by now. Give me a quick and easy system like Fantasy Warriors or one that is just an additional die roll, like LotR or Warmaster, or one that is integrated into the normal system, like SoBH. All work well and don’t make you forget the normal game.
Speeding up movements is another thing that’s certainly not wrong. SoBH and Warmaster both give you the impression of a fog of war without introducing new rules.
…
There has come together so much good stuff, I want to add something else: rules need to enable the fluff not vice versa.
The latter has been done in extenso by GW and their many copyists: unit Xy or race z is pretty good at this or that and it cannot be represented with the rules, so just add a special rule: elite elf units always strike first even when charged, space marines don’t rout even if they break. Sounds nice when you meet it first but burdens the game with endless discussions and searching through the book to find those rules.
Another option: make a system that allows for variety and use it:
Warmaster orcs have very low LD, so a player’s strategy usually involves minimizing the risk of a failed command roll and stacking up truly huge units. Just like I always imagined an orc army. The same works with SoBH armies with low Q: stack up units, add many leaders/banners etc.
This makes armies feel truly different on the tabletop without any extras.
-
Good syntax, grammar and punctuation or at least a decent stab at them.
A logical flow to the concepts espoused and written in a lucid and concise manner.
Illustrative examples are always nice as are neat diagrams, where required.
I don't want my rules to read like Habermas and nor do I want them to read like Phil Barker.
Well said!
-
The one thing that's really important is basing; lots of games aren't basing agnostic. That doesn't mean you can't play those games with different base sizes to the prescribed ones, but either you'll have to change the bases of all units proportionately or you'll be changing the game quite fundamentally.
[…]
1. Short 'time to table'
I like games where you can decide to play and be playing in five minutes flat. Hordes of the Things/DBA, Saga, Song of Blades and Heroes, Battlesworn and the Rampant series all fall into this category. If you and an opponent want a game, you can stat up your army or warband in a minute or two and have the game on the table. That means many more games played.
I'd identify a protracted time to table as the main factor in my not playing some games I really love: Rogue Planet, Mayhem and Pulp Alley among them. None of those games are bad in that respect, really, but I'd play much more of all of them if statting things up were a bit quicker.
In that regard, I'd point out that online army builders can make a real difference. We've played lots of Kings of War over the past year because the army builders nudge it into having a short time to table. If Mayhem had the same, I'd play much more of it. Song of Blades and Heroes is an example of a game that might take longer than five minutes with pen and paper (though the extensive troop lists at the back of the book offset this), but the online warband builder means that it's almost instant.
Two other excellent points I oversaw yesterday: the „pick up time“ for a ruleset is what killed Warhammer and its offsprings for me. When I have a gaming night, it’s usually after a day’s work. The same is true for my opponent. So either having a large set of pregenerated profiles (Rampant series, SoBH) or an online tool (SoBH) helps to get to the table in acceptable time.
Mayhem is really really a system I’d like to try, but I cannot bring the Battlescribe app to accept the Mayhem files. I even contacted Mr Spivey and we could not find a solution. The app was apparently updated and doesn’t work with the old files anymore. And this brings me to another point: online armybuilders are great (especially if they are an easy to read excel sheet), any kind of app that is needed is just annoying.
And Hobgoblin’s point about the bases is really good. I just don’t want to rebase to play a new set of rules!
-
First & foremost, it must be a period I'm interested in. With scale & basing agnostic. It is relatively easy to memorise the basic rules, combat, movement, etc. Lastly, to be a believable but fun game.
-
I want rules that will scale up to the point where I can play games with thousands of figures on a ballroom floor with a rule book thick enough to allow me the option of beating the author to death with it if the rules significantly disappoint!
Me and you Ithoriel, but as Fred pointed out
this needs a set of rules that is geared to this.
otherwise you really end up with a game that looks absolutely splendid but is a chore to play.
-
Me and you Ithoriel, but as Fred pointed out
otherwise you really end up with a
I fully agree. I love huge games with huge armies (I'm currently building one for my medievals and that's going to be a very long term project. But the problem then is finding the space, the people, and everything else. Especially because I just can't really seem to succeed at finding many historical wargamers around these parts. It's only ever Warhammer and specifically 40k.
That has nice aesthetics but as a game it just doesn't do it for me. It's too much a competition in rolling dice and then rolling some more. A pretty boring experiences altogether.
Other things I really enjoy in a ruleset is if basing is simple and preferably compatible with other systems. I prefer it if the exact base size doesn't matter too much because no one has the time to rebase and all that. Except maybe for people with way too much time on their hands.
I also like it if it's an interactive game where both sides constantly get to make decisions and you don't spend half an hour or more where all you do is roll dice because your opponent tells you so. Generally, I like it if the resolution doesn't take too long so the focus can be on actual decisions and movement.
-
1) I like a bit of ‘granular’ character to each army’s units - so that some troops are better quality than others. Not a fan of army lists that have mostly generic troop types.
2) I want results that seem believeable. Or a ruleset that can be modified in game with sportsmanlike Co-players so that events work out believably (eg: there’s no way your artillery could have turned their guns that quickly on skirmishers emerging from a wood behind them; or ‘let’s face it, your plate-armoured men at arms falling back into a river have drowned’). In this sense, I like the Hail Caesar/Pike and Shotte games.
3) A game where tactics should be intuitive and a good overall strategy works - instead of games where a rote-learnt knowledge of units’ special abilities and skills is how to win (puts me off Age of Sigmar whenever I olay it).
-
The one thing that's really important is basing; lots of games aren't basing agnostic. That doesn't mean you can't play those games with different base sizes to the prescribed ones, but either you'll have to change the bases of all units proportionately or you'll be changing the game quite fundamentally.
I have to admit, this concept is something I don't understand at all!
I have never come across a game which isn't "base agnostic". Then again, I'm an exclusive "tea-tray/postcard" wargamer, where perhaps bases aren't important. Outside of trying to make armies rank up, shoulder to shoulder (in which case, I can see why squares of a certain size, depending on troop-type, would be useful) why is base-shape/size important? How does it affect the game in any significant way?
Song of Blades and Heroes is an example of a game that might take longer than five minutes with pen and paper (though the extensive troop lists at the back of the book offset this), but the online warband builder means that it's almost instant.
Unless you're me, and you spend hours agonising over all the possible options, in which case, it's one of the slowest 'time to table' examples there is!
-
I have to admit, this concept is something I don't understand at all!
I have never come across a game which isn't "base agnostic". Then again, I'm an exclusive "tea-tray/postcard" wargamer, where perhaps bases aren't important. Outside of trying to make armies rank up, shoulder to shoulder (in which case, I can see why squares of a certain size, depending on troop-type, would be useful) why is base-shape/size important? How does it affect the game in any significant way?
Unless you're me, and you spend hours agonising over all the possible options, in which case, it's one of the slowest 'time to table' examples there is!
The whole DBx series prescribes very exact bases for your elements, otherwise the rules don’t really work. Warhammer is also quite strict in basing. Just bring Orcs based on 20mm instead of 25mm each into a competitive environment! ;)
Actually with the exception of the Rampant series and Of Armies and Hordes, only skirmish games like SoBH or maybe AoS in it’s early versions most rulesets demand rather specific bases for individual models or elements. I’ve played Fantasy Warriors, Chronopia, Demonworld, Warhammer, 40k and many more. They all had prescribed base sizes.
Edit: only now saw your question about game effects: in Warhammer and Co they are important to calculate the number of attack die, in DBx bases are important for maneuvering and push-back distance, in orher games (Confrontation for instance) they determine how many enemy models may attack a model.
-
In Warhammer and Co they are important to calculate the number of attack die, in DBx bases are important for maneuvering and push-back distance, in other games (Confrontation for instance) they determine how many enemy models may attack a model.
That makes sense. I am a newcomer to wargaming really, and have only joined in the post-SBH era. Every ruleset I've tried has been totally disinterested in which miniatures you use and on what bases they're on, so the idea that other wargames care about base-sizes or types at all is something I've always thought a bit strange, but it makes sense in light of what you've said.
I am slightly taken aback by the number of people responding to this post who seem to want to play games with half a dozen figures on a tea tray using a set of rules written on the back of a post card.
Reading back through the posts, I honestly can't see anyone other than myself who is expressing an interest in games of that particular scale! However, I'm owning this concept from now on and even considered buying a tea-tray for wargaming in!
-
That makes sense. I am a newcomer to wargaming really, and have only joined in the post-SBH era. Every ruleset I've tried has been totally disinterested in which miniatures you use and on what bases they're on, so the idea that other wargames care about base-sizes or types at all is something I've always thought a bit strange, but it makes sense in light of what you've said.
Just to expand on what DivisMal said, set base sizes are generally the norm in rank'n'flank/massed-battle games (grid-based games being the main exception); in skirmish games, base sizes are largely irrelevant.
In massed-battle games, this tends to come down to the number of troops that can occupy a given frontage. Heavy infantry will be packed more densely than skirmishers. In DBA, for example, four heavy infantry typically occupy one 'element' base while the same base would contain only two skirmishers. In games with individual basing, the bases are often bigger or smaller to reflect the role of the troops.
Oddly enough, these base sizes have been fairly consistent over the decades: there are observable 'lineages', with lots of games using the DBA standards of 40mm for 15mm elements and 60mm for 25-28mm. With individual basing (WRG lineage?), 20mm was the standard for 25/28mm troops - with heavy infantry and skirmishers on smaller and bigger bases, respectively. Warhammer was - originally - no exception: on page 28 of Tabletop Battles (1st ed), you get the base sizes for various troop types. Humans are on 20mm squares unless they are 'shock troops' (15mm) or skirmishers (30mm). As you can see, those correspond exactly to the DBA standard (so four 'shock troops' to a 60mm frontage, three medium/light infantry and two skirmishers).
So important are base sizes in rank'n'flank that they have sunk whole miniature ranges - most infamously, Warhammer's Fimir, who were sunk when they received beastman-ish profiles but were issued with 40mm bases (beastmen would have been on 25mm squares). This meant that they offered too few attacks and too little resilience for their expanded frontage.
-
Reading back through the posts, I honestly can't see anyone other than myself who is expressing an interest in games of that particular scale! However, I'm owning this concept from now on and even considered buying a tea-tray for wargaming in!
In my own defence, I did own up to a significant level of hyperbole.
I look forward to your posts, in the"Post a picture of the last game you played" thread, showing off your tea tray battlefields! :D
-
So important are base sizes in rank'n'flank that they have sunk whole miniature ranges - most infamously, Warhammer's Fimir, who were sunk when they received beastman-ish profiles but were issued with 40mm bases (beastmen would have been on 25mm squares). This meant that they offered too few attacks and too little resilience for their expanded frontage.
Interesting! So immersed have I been in the world of skirmishing I had never really considered that as an issue.
As a side note, I had always thought the Fimir were sunk because of their problematic back-story, rather than their base sizes!
I look forward to your posts, in the"Post a picture of the last game you played" thread, showing off your tea tray battlefields! :D
You can count on it!
-
Interesting! So immersed have I been in the world of skirmishing I had never really considered that as an issue.
As a side note, I had always thought the Fimir were sunk because of their problematic back-story, rather than their base sizes!
I don't remember anybody caring about that in the 80s: I think it just fitted in with their creepy, folkloric image and connection with the Fomorians (and the Fimir are no worse than the broos, who were and remain extremely popular foes in wargames and RPGs).
I can distinctly remember performing the calculations and being disappointed at the profile/base relationship - and I think it's quite well attested that this was the big issue for sales.
-
Just to expand on what DivisMal said, set base sizes are generally the norm in rank'n'flank/massed-battle games (grid-based games being the main exception); in skirmish games, base sizes are largely irrelevant.
In massed-battle games, this tends to come down to the number of troops that can occupy a given frontage. Heavy infantry will be packed more densely than skirmishers. In DBA, for example, four heavy infantry typically occupy one 'element' base while the same base would contain only two skirmishers. In games with individual basing, the bases are often bigger or smaller to reflect the role of the troops.
Oddly enough, these base sizes have been fairly consistent over the decades: there are observable 'lineages', with lots of games using the DBA standards of 40mm for 15mm elements and 60mm for 25-28mm. With individual basing (WRG lineage?), 20mm was the standard for 25/28mm troops - with heavy infantry and skirmishers on smaller and bigger bases, respectively. Warhammer was - originally - no exception: on page 28 of Tabletop Battles (1st ed), you get the base sizes for various troop types. Humans are on 20mm squares unless they are 'shock troops' (15mm) or skirmishers (30mm). As you can see, those correspond exactly to the DBA standard (so four 'shock troops' to a 60mm frontage, three medium/light infantry and two skirmishers).
So important are base sizes in rank'n'flank that they have sunk whole miniature ranges - most infamously, Warhammer's Fimir, who were sunk when they received beastman-ish profiles but were issued with 40mm bases (beastmen would have been on 25mm squares). This meant that they offered too few attacks and too little resilience for their expanded frontage.
As always, some nice background, that finally let me understand the suggested basing for WAB and Hail Caesar. That’s why 15mm is actually an option!
Concerning the Fimirs, I also had the impression that they had become to „adult“, but never understood it when you had witches bathing in human blood, cannibals and sex-demons in the same range!
-
Concerning the Fimirs, I also had the impression that they had become to „adult“, but never understood it when you had witches bathing in human blood, cannibals and sex-demons in the same range!
From Graeme Davis ( (http://http://realmofzhu.blogspot.com/2013/01/origin-of-species-fimir.html[/u)]http://realmofzhu.blogspot.com/2013/01/origin-of-species-fimir.html[/url][/color]):
The popularisation of Fimir wasn't helped by a communications foul-up when Nick Bibby took over making the miniatures from Jes - Nick made them all Ogre-sized, compared to Jes' and my idea that they should be Orc sized. So we had big, expensive miniatures with low game stats, and nobody bought them. Sigh.
The Fimir backstory may have counted against their inclusion in fourth-edition WFB (aimed more at kids?), but I don't remember anyone being bothered by it at the time. After all, GW was producing RuneQuest at the time, broos and all! And didn't GW/Forgeworld bring Fimir back fairly recently?
-
The Fimir backstory may have counted against their inclusion in fourth-edition WFB (aimed more at kids?), but I don't remember anyone being bothered by it at the time. After all, GW was producing RuneQuest at the time, broos and all!
They even included Fimir in the original HeroQuest in 1989, even more aimed at kids!
And didn't GW/Forgeworld bring Fimir back fairly recently?
They did, but it was over a decade ago now.
-
My off the cuff response to the original post...
1. Do the rules appear to do a good job representing what's unique about their era/theatre/genre/whatever?
2. Do the rules get the hell out of the way and let you just play the game? I do not want to be consulting 8 rulebooks, 15 PDFs, and a website-based FAQ every 90 seconds.
3. Do the rules keep most players involved most of the time?
I prefer skirmish or "big skirmish" games myself, prefer alternate activation systems to "I move and fight my entire army, then you get to do things with your surviving units" (so, cards or chit draw or dice-for-activation systems), but ultimately I'll play nearly anything presented to me that looks interesting, although I'm choosier about what I'll invest my own time and cash in!
-
From Graeme Davis ( (http://http://realmofzhu.blogspot.com/2013/01/origin-of-species-fimir.html[/u)]http://realmofzhu.blogspot.com/2013/01/origin-of-species-fimir.html[/url][/color]):
The Fimir backstory may have counted against their inclusion in fourth-edition WFB (aimed more at kids?), but I don't remember anyone being bothered by it at the time. After all, GW was producing RuneQuest at the time, broos and all! And didn't GW/Forgeworld bring Fimir back fairly recently?
I’m delighted to learn this little piece, which also explains the two sizes of fimirs in my collection. And yeah, big bases suck with Warhammer. The last edition I played (6th?) gave all slightly elite infantry 2 attack, which meant that trolls and ogres had become totally worthless: 3 attacks on 40mm (giant monster) or 4 attacks on 40-50mm with significantly higher WS and cool special rules.
They even included Fimir in the original HeroQuest in 1989, even more aimed at kids!
I only had the German versions which toned down the violence in both Hero Quest and Space Crusade (sold as StarQuest), and afaik there was no reference to the sexual appetite of fimirs (and neither any reference to the genestealer reproduction.
Genestealer Cults were abandoned in 40k 3rd edition (right after the colorful fluffy ott 2nd) and I think fimirs a little earlier with Warhammer 4th (though the profiles might have still been somewhere).
When both games aimed for the mass market, it appeared to me that many of the crazier and slightly weird ideas were dropped. Beastmen, to name another prominent example, lost their weirdness with WH 4th and became simple goatmen/broo.
@hobgoblin: I never played RQ nor Glorantha, so what’s so terrible with broo? I thought they’d just be goatmen in a slightly more ancient fantasy world.
-
2. Do the rules get the hell out of the way and let you just play the game? I do not want to be consulting 8 rulebooks, 15 PDFs, and a website-based FAQ every 90 seconds.
That's a really good point. The best rulebooks are those you hardly need to open once you know how to play. SoBH (along with its kin) is the absolute winner here for me. It's been a while since I've played it, but I think Pulp Alley falls into that category too: once you know how it works, you need only refer to your roster sheet occasionally. And FUBAR wins out for having a 'rulebook' that's about the size of a roster sheet!
The Rampant family are pretty good here too, though the long stat lines mean that you tend to need to consult the roster sheets quite a bit (at least at first). Saga is another game where you don't need the rulebook that much: you do all your consulting with the battleboards.
-
afaik there was no reference to the sexual appetite of fimirs
Not in HeroQuest itself, no, but it is slightly odd that, of all the available creatures in Warhammer, they chose fimirs to be included in a children's fantasy adventure game!
-
Not in HeroQuest itself, no, but it is slightly odd that, of all the available creatures in Warhammer, they chose fimirs to be included in a children's fantasy adventure game!
True, but if you, like me, had never heard about fimirs before, you consider them just lizardman cyclopses. After all they had the decency not to model any sexual organs on the HQ ones lol
However, now that I’ve read Hobgoblin’s account and the link to the Graeme Davis usenet quote, I finally understand why the HQ are on 25mm bases and so much smaller! These are actually the real fimirs!!
-
@hobgoblin: I never played RQ nor Glorantha, so what’s so terrible with broo? I thought they’d just be goatmen in a slightly more ancient fantasy world.
They mostly look like goats and other herd animals because those creature are the most vulnerable to them. They can and will mate with virtually anything, and their monstrous fecundity is such that they can impregnate virtually anything (male or female, and sometimes not even animate). The infants eat their way out. So the broos are essentially an overtly sexual version of the xenomorph from Alien - with a grim mythological origin.
Their true nature isn't really touched on in the classic RQ2 rulebook, but the (excellent) Borderlands supplement goes into more detail, as do other Gloranthan tomes.
Broos are probably the best original RPG monster out there: they're genuinely horrible, they're fully integrated into the Gloranthan mythos, and - on a more mundane level - they're a natural (or unnatural!) threat to the pastoral cultures that populate Prax and Sartar. One of the best ways to introduce new players to Glorantha is to have them charged with looking after the herds when there are rumours of monsters in the nearby marshes. And some of the animals have been behaving strangely - are they infected with something ...
I gather Graeme Davis & co were aiming for a sort of mythical resonance with the Fimir. To be honest, I think they achieved it, even if they've since expressed regret. I don't think there's anything wrong with making monsters monstrous - and especially ones based on the Fomorians, who at one level must represent the successive waves of raiders who plied their trade across and around the Irish sea. Yes, it's horrible - but so are Tolkien's orc-origin writings in Morgoth's Ring and the like.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with making monsters monstrous
I think that's a very good point.
In any case, I had been led to believe their particular breed of monstrousness was what had caused their axing from the Citadel market, but I can see why the basing situation you described earlier would make them a rather valueless unit to field.
-
They mostly look like goats and other herd animals because those creature are the most vulnerable to them. They can and will mate with virtually anything, and their monstrous fecundity is such that they can impregnate virtually anything (male or female, and sometimes not even animate). The infants eat their way out. So the broos are essentially an overtly sexual version of the xenomorph from Alien - with a grim mythological origin.
Much as I support diversity, I think that once you have reached the realms of polyamorous, pansexual, cross-species, gender-agnostic, zoophilia, you have probably jumped the shark in terms of a game. Best to work out those issues in some place other than an RPG. Therapy being the best option.
Not sure how the mechanics would work anyway. 'Oh look , I've rolled a six! Now I get to bugger a sheep'?
-
Usual caveats about consenting adults if cosplay is your thing. ;)
-
They mostly look like goats and other herd animals because those creature are the most vulnerable to them. They can and will mate with virtually anything, and their monstrous fecundity is such that they can impregnate virtually anything (male or female, and sometimes not even animate). The infants eat their way out. So the broos are essentially an overtly sexual version of the xenomorph from Alien - with a grim mythological origin.
Their true nature isn't really touched on in the classic RQ2 rulebook, but the (excellent) Borderlands supplement goes into more detail, as do other Gloranthan tomes.
Broos are probably the best original RPG monster out there: they're genuinely horrible, they're fully integrated into the Gloranthan mythos, and - on a more mundane level - they're a natural (or unnatural!) threat to the pastoral cultures that populate Prax and Sartar. One of the best ways to introduce new players to Glorantha is to have them charged with looking after the herds when there are rumours of monsters in the nearby marshes. And some of the animals have been behaving strangely - are they infected with something ...
I gather Graeme Davis & co were aiming for a sort of mythical resonance with the Fimir. To be honest, I think they achieved it, even if they've since expressed regret. I don't think there's anything wrong with making monsters monstrous - and especially ones based on the Fomorians, who at one level must represent the successive waves of raiders who plied their trade across and around the Irish sea. Yes, it's horrible - but so are Tolkien's orc-origin writings in Morgoth's Ring and the like.
Damn! Now that is horrible!
And truth to be said: Mythology is full of such stuff. Glorantha is something that I missed, maybe I should try to hunt it down.
Much as I support diversity, I think that once you have reached the realms of polyamorous, pansexual, cross-species, gender-agnostic, zoophilia, you have probably jumped the shark in terms of a game. Best to work out those issues in some place other than an RPG. Therapy being the best option.
Not sure how the mechanics would work anyway. 'Oh look , I've rolled a six! Now I get to bugger a sheep'?
It is gruesome, but if I understand it, it’s just a background for monsters (and only monsters impregnating animals), that’s okay for me.
I actually have a harder time with the unreflected violence in many backgrounds easily celebrating genocides.
-
Not sure how the mechanics would work anyway. 'Oh look , I've rolled a six! Now I get to bugger a sheep'?
Much as I support diversity, I think that once you have reached the realms of polyamorous, pansexual, cross-species, gender-agnostic, zoophilia, you have probably jumped the shark in terms of a game. Best to work out those issues in some place other than an RPG. Therapy being the best option.
Not sure how the mechanics would work anyway. 'Oh look , I've rolled a six! Now I get to bugger a sheep'?
Well, RuneQuest is one of the most successful and enduring RPGs of all time, and the broos are its signature monster, so it must be doing something right in terms of broad appeal.
As I noted above the horror of the broos is quite understated in the original text (there's a reference to "atrocities and foul practices"), and there's no need to get more explicit than that. In the games I run with my kids and their friends, for example, they're aware that broos can hybridise with all kinds of things and that they "infect" herds, but it doesn't get more explicit than that.
And it does mean that you get effective horror scenes (a touch of The Thing; a hint of Alien) when an infected herd is discovered - as in this illustration from the King of Dragon Pass game:
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/kingofdragonpass/images/d/da/BirthOfBroos.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130314175019 (https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/kingofdragonpass/images/d/da/BirthOfBroos.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130314175019)
To tie this back to the original question, I'd say that settings only attract me to a rules system when they're really, really good. Glorantha is one example - were Chaosium to produce a wargame (say, a reissue of White Bear, Red Moon), I'd be all over it. The earlier incarnations of the Old World is another (as encapsulated, say, in WFRP - Fimir and all - or Mordheim). But in most other cases, fantasy and sci-fi games are better leaving the setting to the players (as many wisely do).
-
In any case, I had been led to believe their particular breed of monstrousness was what had caused their axing from the Citadel market, but I can see why the basing situation you described earlier would make them a rather valueless unit to field.
I'm sure the commercial imperative was the main thing. Because the Fimir figures were big, they were expensive to buy as well as being expensive in Warhammer points terms. A full army was out of reach for most players, and even an allied contingent was pricy. And that allied contingent just wasn't as good a deal as a band of mercenary ogres, who had better profiles for the same base size, were available to the same armies and were more affordable in sterling.
Given how successful the broos were for GW (I've heard them described as "the space marines of the early 80s") and the fact that they kept broo-alikes alive after they stopped producing RuneQuest, I don't think commercially successful Fimir would have been axed (sanitised, perhaps).
An irony is that the Fimir were designed specifically to be the broos of the Old World (as an iconic monster emblematic of the setting).
-
I don't think commercially successful Fimir would have been axed (sanitised, perhaps).
Makes sense! I was going to say, it's not like Games Workshop haven't 'ret-conned' certain aspects of their lore before. If Fimir had become the driving force for sales, they could have sanitised them as you say (and, I think, quite rightly; broos might be gruesome in that The Thing / Alien sort of way, but a species which only reproduces by the rape of human women I feel is considerably more questionable, even though it might be mythologically on point and perfectly monstrous).
But, if you can change lore, you can also change rules. It makes me wonder why they didn't just make them more powerful (in combat terms) in response to low sales?
-
Well, RuneQuest is one of the most successful and enduring RPGs of all time, and the broos are its signature monster, so it must be doing something right in terms of broad appeal.
<snip>
settings only attract me to a rules system when they're really, really good. Glorantha is one example
Absolutely - Glorantha is a superb RPG setting. The coherent mythology provides rationales for all the races and cultures and makes for a very rich and believable background for RPG adventures, especially if you are actually into the characterful role-playing side and not just killing, looting, and getting tougher and more laden with magic items.
Broos are suitably monstrous monsters, and by their nature they can be different every time PCs encounter them, presenting new and characterful challenges.
-
Meanwhile, back in the real world, things I want from a game system ... I could list lots, probably all mentioned by others already, but let's pick three as requested:
- Fast-moving enough to present significant tactical decisions every turn and to finish a game in a 3- to 4-hour club night
- Plausibly representing whatever combat it is supposed to represent
- The right mix of luck and skill so that chance can create surprises (unpleasant or otherwise), while still rewarding good plans and tactics
-
Meanwhile, back in the real world, things I want from a game system ... I could list lots, probably all mentioned by others already, but let's pick three as requested:
- Fast-moving enough to present significant tactical decisions every turn and to finish a game in a 3- to 4-hour club night
- Plausibly representing whatever combat it is supposed to represent
- The right mix of luck and skill so that chance can create surprises (unpleasant or otherwise), while still rewarding good plans and tactics
Now what game could possibly have those three present? ;)
I'm waiting on my order to arrive having been introduced to your rules at a club night last week.
-
Now what game could possibly have those three present? ;)
I'm waiting on my order to arrive having been introduced to your rules at a club night last week.
As Clausewitz might say, these are just universal principles that should apply to all games, even if these principles are based on experience of real-life examples (he said piously) - including experience of far too many games that failed to observe them ... :D
Thanks for your order and I'm glad you must have found some things about the rules system to attract you to it. My compliments to whatever enlightened person introduced you to it. Which club, may I ask?
Chris
-
Now what game could possibly have those three present? ;)
I'm waiting on my order to arrive having been introduced to your rules at a club night last week.
If you’re looking for skirmish games SoBH and its offsprings are very close to that ideal.
-
- Fast-moving enough to present significant tactical decisions every turn and to finish a game in a 3- to 4-hour club night
- Plausibly representing whatever combat it is supposed to represent
- The right mix of luck and skill so that chance can create surprises (unpleasant or otherwise), while still rewarding good plans and tactics
As you know, these concepts are simple.... but not easy to make happen on the tabletop for the majority of players.
-
Many good points all around and it’s interesting how totally different expectations there are. Personally, I’m into wargaming for three reasons - the spectacle, mental fitness and manual hobby. So, my three cents:
- Interesting setting and aesthetics. I don’t play historicals, so your game must stand out from the crowd of samey fantasy/sci-fi/cyberpunk tropes. Either with the story, models or both. If you don’t intend to release your own model line, you should still show me compelling vision via conversions, so I can spend unreasonable amounts of time building myself a pair of armies and fully fledged table in proper aesthetics. Turnip28 is a great example of how to do it.
- Interesting and efficient math. I’m a long time Bridge player and my brain has been deeply formatted to take pleasure from reading the „battlefield” well enough, so that my predictions about the flow of the game are spot on. So no gotcha mechanics of any kind, no special abilities that break common rules (they may bend them however, if your game does not have 8000 unique units in it to memorize). But on the other hand, if all your units are just rehashes of the same pool of basic stats, then I’ll quickly become bored. Resolution mechanic itself should at the same time have the capacity to handle full range of input-result pairs and be quick enough to resolve. So no buckets of dice rolled 6-8 times for a single event, but also no single d6 rolls of X+.
- Last, but not least, it has to have replayability aimed at small and closed groups. Let’s not fool ourselves - if you are not a fully grown company that has the money to invest heavily in marketing and logistics, your game will be niche of a niche. There will be no tournaments, no widespread playerbase and no pick-up culture. Just isolated pockets of friends here and there. If your replayability must come from large pool of different armies, playstyles and opponents, then it is only good as a one-off on a convention for me, not worth the trouble of building armies and terrain for it.
So here it is. I would also take this opportunity to say hi! to everyone, as this is my first post on this forum.
-
So here it is. I would also take this opportunity to say hi! to everyone, as this is my first post on this forum.
Welcome, nou.
I dig your Nox Arcana Necronomicon album cover avatar!
-
Welcome, nou.
I dig your Nox Arcana Necronomicon album cover avatar!
All credits for that go to whomever set up this forum, as it is one of the many, many, many standard ones available when signing up.
-
As Clausewitz might say, these are just universal principles that should apply to all games, even if these principles are based on experience of real-life examples (he said piously) - including experience of far too many games that failed to observe them ... :D
Thanks for your order and I'm glad you must have found some things about the rules system to attract you to it. My compliments to whatever enlightened person introduced you to it. Which club, may I ask?
Chris
The Lost Legion in Hitchin. A very friendly bunch who meet every Sunday.
-
The Lost Legion in Hitchin. A very friendly bunch who meet every Sunday.
Sounds very civilised. :)
-
These 3 things are what make me want a rules system.
1. Solo rules.
2. Campaign.
3. Miniature agnostic.
4. Skirmish.
-
Those are four, but I agree!
-
Those are four, but I agree!
If a rules-system has 3 out of the 4 I listed, then I want to try it.
-
A bit late to the party, but here's my €0,02
First off, I need to establish that I am mostly a Scifi and Fantasy player with a strong emphasis on skirmish gaming; the big battles have grown out of fashion pretty much in my local scene.
* So, with that stated, for me, rules need to be simple and concise, yet granular enough to give enough variety between units.
A game that I think does this well: Grimdark Future (Firefight). A game that I think does not: Infinity.
* This also means I'm a big fan of opposed dice rolls with as few modifiers and ways of calculating as possible. A kind of bluffing system is also very fun.
A game that does this very well is Bushido. A game that I find is not so good at this: Infinity.
* Special rules are what often give flavour to games, but I absolutely abhor games that stack abilities, combo's and synergies between units to pull of some kind of miraculous effect that completely alters the whole game.
A game that I think does this well: Bushido. A game that I find failing horribly at this: Warmachine/Hordes.
* I like it when abilities are clearly stated on character cards, with easily trackable health, ammo/magic etc, and all special rules for that particular unit/miniature. Additional cards with equipment are also great, as are tokens to track the above. I'm less enthused by tracking health by striking off dots with whiteboard pens.
A game that I find does this very well: X-Wing. A game that obviously does not: Warhammer 40K 3rd to 6th edition (I haven't played any of the later ones).
* I like the option in a game to add an additional faction or encounter(s) to the game using a sturdy AI system.
A game that I find does this well: Frostgrave. A game that I find is not so good at this: The Drowned Earth.
* And obviously, a game needs to be fun; as someone stated in this thread before: it's a game, and games are supposed to be fun. What's the point of playing a game otherwise? It's not a job after all. (This reminds me of the very old starter box of the 'Oog des Meesters' roleplaying game, which boldly stated on the box lid 'Professional Edition', and I've always wondered just how many professional OdM players there actually were. And how one went about becoming one! lol ).
So yeah; these are all just my experiences, preferences and opinions: please take them for what they are... ;)