Rules with a POV

[Easy E]

Greetings all,

I like to muse a bit about wargame design as if I know something about the subject.  I don't.  Well, I don't know anymore than anyone else anyway.  My latest musing was about creating or having a Point-of-View (POV) within the framework or your rules design. 

POV.  I see this acronym all over the world of Social Media and the Internet.  It usually sets-up a joke with a funny image.  However, when it comes to Wargame Design POV is more than a punchline. 

So, what does POV even mean? POV is short-hand for Point of View.  You may hear this term related to the role a player plays in the military structure of the game they are playing.  I.e. a Corp commander or Divisional Quartermaster is the POV of the game.   However, that is not what I want to address in this post.  In the case of Wargame Design and the theory related to it, POV pertains to the Point of View a designer brings to how the game they are building should be played.  It is through this lens that a designer makes decisions about the nature of the game, what it is trying to do on the table, and what "reality" the rules are trying to reflect.

Anyway, that's how it all gets started and goes from there.  You can read the full story here is you want:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/10/wargame-design-having-pov.html

 

However, here is the "short" version. 
1. The designer should have a POV of how the warfare they are trying to game for works. 
2. Historical games have all sorts of theories on how warfare for the time period worked, and any game based off history should be clear which theory they are going with.
3. Even non-historical games should have a "this is how warfare in this setting works" and stick to it.
4. Not everyone will agree with the POV your game takes, and that's okay.

This POV will help you build the basics for your game design and act as guard rails for what your rules will cover, keeps the whole cohesive, and avoids common wargame design traps. 

What do you think?  Have you run across a game that had a different POV of a period than you did?  What was your reaction?  Have you ever been swayed to think about a period or style of warfare differently thanks to a games POV? 


 

[Belligerentparrot]

Interesting read, thanks.

What you say for design would also hold for a GM'd game, I think. Things often work better, in my experience at least, when the GM communicates a sense of the things that you're describing as belonging to POV.

Being clear on POV would also have helped, again at least in my experience, when it comes to discussions of homebrew rules on forums. I used to hang out on a Necromunda forum, and there were always arguments when people presented their homebrew rules for whatever faction in the wider fluff they were trying to include.

I thought at the time a lot of the arguments were stemming from unstated assumptions about what gang warfare was meant to be in the game: e.g. did hive gangs function like off-duty professionally trained soldiers (so could somewhat go toe-to-toe with a squad of Eldar Rangers or whatever) or were they more like thugs with guns (likely no match at all for a single Eldar Ranger)? With hindsight, this is exactly what you're calling a POV issue, isn't it?

[Freddy]

In my opinion there are three types of wargames

-The Engineer. This is modeling, but with rules, cares about a lot of writing the real world mechanics into game rules and hopes that the carefully modeled mechanics will build up into a good simulation. Good example: Missile Threat (and its other era versions) where game statistics of planes can be easily determined from their real life technical data.
Pros: easy to add new stuff and usually very intuitive system.
Cons: Rules heavy. Also not everything can be modelled exactly into a wargame (think gun ranges), this will lead to compromises and exceptions.

-The Gamer. To hell with reality, it shall function as a game, the setting is just a skin on it. Example: Warmachine.
Pros: it is fun  Edit: also easier to balance
Cons: an ACW-themed tictactoe might be fun, but not exactly an ACW simulation wargame.

-The Impressionist: this is what you are talking about, the main viewpoint is the exact simulation of the given conflict type, everything is watched through the lens of giving the desired effect/feel, without the need of going into deeper details. Example: Hind&Seek
Pros: good simulation results
Cons: some rules are not intuitive and the rules in general are not universal and they are hard to expand- in a different setting the very same thing would have a completely different ruleset or even mechanics. Some dont care, but I like universal rulesets at least within one era. Also the model is always reflecting the preconceptions of the modeler, this applies to conflict models too: unlike Engineer games, this type restricts players thinking into the authors view of the given conflict. Good luck stopping the Ardennes offensive in a system where the author thinks the Tiger tanks are invulnerable

[Easy E]

Interesting post Freddy. 

I actually think about that completely differently.  I see that as three points on a designers triangle that you move between when making decisions about the game.  I considered the three points of this triangle to be Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist.  Of course, the exact nature and naming conventions we can all quibble over. 

You can read more about that thought here:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/07/wargame-design-ngs-narrative-gamist.html

Here, I am thinking more about have a Point-of-View on how warfare is fought for THIS game or period.  I.e. do you follow a Clauswitzian model of mounting friction that the commander has to overcome and manage?  Or do you lean more into the "Great Man of History" and the role of officers is primary?  Or do you have a view that it was Paper-Rock-Scissors view of how units worked. 

Of course, it is possible to have more than one POV that work together but it is important that a player will be able to intuitively understand what the author's POV is about the warfare they are fighting and playing in the game. 

No idea if this helps or even makes sense. 

[Freddy]

Interesting post Freddy. 

I actually think about that completely differently.  I see that as three points on a designers triangle that you move between when making decisions about the game.  I considered the three points of this triangle to be Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist.  Of course, the exact nature and naming conventions we can all quibble over. 

Sure, my 3 categories are also a triangle. For example, 40k is right in the middle: started as a simulation, but constantly gets narrative elements cobbled on while they try to maintain the balance too to be a competitive game. With more or less success

I agree that the difficulties of leading can be an interesting element, but most games also try to simulate that with things like communication difficulties, chain of command, morale system and support problems etc. Also the level of leadershp matters a lot, do you fly one plane or command an air war. These shall always be matched to the base rules ofc.