I tend to hear a lot of people talk about game X or game Y as being too complex or too simple (often for the same game). I honestly don't see it as necessarily a contradiction, since I've sat down and solidified my philosophy on gaming complexity (yeah, I think about this stuff a bit much...)
- A game features a Tactical Complexity and a Rules Complexity.
- Tactical Complexity is a positive feature. It means that I'm making difficult decisions that decide the outcome of the match, but the solutions are not obvious or easy.
- Rules Complexity is a negative feature- this represents how cumbersome the rules are. If you need five decks of cards to draw from and the game takes an hour to set up, that's Rules Complexity.
- However, some Rules Complexity often contributes to adding Tactical Complexity. But sometimes they do not- no one wants to spend two hours with ten separate decks of cards only to have the winner be completely random.
- Therefore- a game passes my test if I find that the Rules Complexity is justified by the Tactical Complexity they provide.
That's the simple version. The truth is, there are other things that can justify added complexity- if something is funny enough, or thematic in an entertaining way, the complexity can be justified. Also, there are elements of luck and time- we don't mind spending five minutes on a completely random game, but if we spend two hours on the same game, it is awful.
So the greatest achievement would seemingly be a game that has very low Rules Complexity and very high Tactical Complexity.
- Chess is a good example of the sweet spot- the rules are super simple, but the tactics get really complex.
- Candyland is the lowest complexity game I know on both counts. If fails to be cool mostly because it is WAY TOO LONG. Something like Zombie Dice can get away with being super simple because it is done in five minutes.
- I'd place Warmachine on the high end of both complexities. The core rules are very simple, but every mini has special rules on their card, and they all come into play during the game. I find it impressive that the tactical complexity is actually strong enough to justify the rules complexity (this can make games into intense affairs).
- Various editions of 40k end up in different spots. GW swings back and forth on how complex they want the game to be, and they have some trouble settling on a spot. It has pretty much always occupied a spot that's less tactically complex than Warmachine, but it usually isn't quite to the beer and pretzels level.
Could Rules Complexity extend to needing an absurd amount of reference materials in order to play a game?
If so 40k falls into that category for me. I am really interested in some of the newer armies coming out, but the rules glut and having so many optional/negotiable rules/formations/whatever spread out over various media (PDFs, printed books) that I just lose interest. Keeping all of that stuff straight before even picking up a model or building an army list tanks any sort of enthusiasm or desire to play.
Another game that had that problem but I think is slowly recovering is Battletech.
Battletech started off as a fairly simple beer and pretzels game that expanded over the decades to include a lot of supplemental rules. The nice thing is the system is still fairly simple and can be taught to people in about 10 minutes, but there is depth to the system that makes it hard to master. If you stick to the core rules/equipment you can have straightforward game that is easy to teach and fun.
However, since the rules system hasn't changed dramatically since 1984, there are a ton of supplemental materials out there that can really overwhelm players, especially new ones. The current team handling the game is doing well to categorize supplements based on various eras in the game's fictional history to better designate what type of material is offered in each supplement, but there is still a lot of material to go through between new releases and the old back catalog. Still, its better than it used to be, and with quick play rules expansions like Alpha-Strike, it seems that the designers are trying to bring Battletech up to a modern standard of streamlined play.
I think Zombicide does a good job of balancing Tactical Complexity with Rules Complexity. It is really easy to learn and play a game of Zombicide, but as you work through some of the later scenarios it becomes clear that you can't just hack and shoot your way through to victory.
In your opinion what is the sweet spot for miniature games currently?
40K certainly suffers from an abundance of complexity which doesn't add corresponding depth to the gameplay, where depth is defined by meaningful choices a player can make within the ruleset.
A perfect example of this is the huge increase in random charts over the past couple of editions. They add complexity to the ruleset without increasing the meaningful choices the player can actually make. There's no meaningful choice that a Chaos player makes to roll on the chaos boon table when their chaos lord murders that sergeant, they are forced to. Same for Orks with Mob Rule.
Extra Credits did a great episode on this from a video game perspective but I think the points they raise can be translated across relatively easily:
Did you just claim Age of Sigmar is like Chess? That is a joke.
Great topic, looking forward to what others will say.
If you need five decks of cards to draw from and the game takes an hour to set up, that's Rules Complexity
Not sure what this means. Sadly I am a visual person and can't think without "seeing" it. What game would this be? Or are you just talking general? If this is like a 40K analogy does this mean "making a list" before hand and then "setting up a game because we got to roll on random table to see what game to play, roll on random table to see what scenario we are playing" and that is why setting up takes so long?
Just asking so I can understand this more. That said, what is acceptable Complexity in games? Well first of all what do you mean by complexity? For me complexity means a mess. For others complexity means added more rules and stats added to so a game is not simple. Who is correct here? Am I correct or am I wrong? Neither since it's an opinion.
All I can say is what is acceptable is what doesn't bog the game down.
I think the problem is a lot of people use the word complexity for depth. Some of those people will say if a game doesn't have depth, it's too simple for them to play so it's no fun to play or even try. But instead of using the word depth, they will use the word complexity since it makes them smarter, to play and therefore they are better for some reason. Just like how we don't "play" with toy soldiers but we "game" with miniatures.
X-wing is one of those games with rules simplicity but tactical complexity that I find very enjoyable.
I agree that 40K has belabored itself with unnecessary rules complexity - the random tables is one aspect, the 10,000,000 snowflake USRs that are slight variations of other USRs is another that makes the game a headache.
Even D&D 3E started off with rules simplicity, but with the expanding list of feats, spells, races, (prestige) classes and the like became so bogged that the game became a chore for DMs to run. 4E cut the other direction so that there was a lot of outcry about the blandness and cries that the roleplaying vanished in favor of a hack'n'slash form of game. 5E seems to have straddled the two extremes, remaining simple but being open so that it can handle a wide breadth of play styles.
I do hope 40K rights itself with a balance of rules simplicity and tactical depth, but I have no faith that what will come out of 8th edition will be more than a tweaked AoS that no one is pleased with.
I do hope 40K rights itself with a balance of rules simplicity and tactical depth, but I have no faith that what will come out of 8th edition will be more than a tweaked AoS that no one is pleased with.
It's actually quite simple to do. Just give rules how to move, how to attack, how to defend, and don't have any universal special rules and the rest of the rules can be on "cards" or download the data slates off the net. The stats of the units can just be like in the codices for the beginning of 8th edition so nothing is invalidated since all the rules will be on the card/data slates.
Thing is, it's just time consuming, and could have been done by now. Still we are 6 months away from release so they still have time to do so.
Thing is, GW of old would hardly lift a finger to do any work and charge triple for their effort. Will GW of new actually do the leg work needed to fix their game? Time will tell. Six months and counting now.
A Town Called Malus wrote: 40K certainly suffers from an abundance of complexity which doesn't add corresponding depth to the gameplay, where depth is defined by meaningful choices a player can make within the ruleset.
A perfect example of this is the huge increase in random charts over the past couple of editions. They add complexity to the ruleset without increasing the meaningful choices the player can actually make. There's no meaningful choice that a Chaos player makes to roll on the chaos boon table when their chaos lord murders that sergeant, they are forced to. Same for Orks with Mob Rule.
Extra Credits did a great episode on this from a video game perspective but I think the points they raise can be translated across relatively easily:
So...
If your Dwarf Greybeards don't move, they get a 2+ Armor Save = Depth.
If you get down on your knees and swear a blood oath of vengeance against your opponents family, your Dwarf Greybeards get a 2+ Armor Save = Complexity?
Stormonu wrote: X-wing is one of those games with rules simplicity but tactical complexity that I find very enjoyable.
On the other hand, I find X-Wing frighteningly complicated due to the hundreds of possible options available. If I were playing X-Wing all the time, and nothing else, I might manage to stay on top of all the possible upgrades, but playing casually ... nah. I'll stick to Luke and R2-D2 again, I think.
To me, what's important is complexity appropriate to the command level I'm playing. In 40k, as a company commander, I shouldn't need to worry that squad 3's missile launcher can't see because he's behind a big rock. That's the sergeant's job to worry about. Just chuck that stuff away and abstract it like AT-43 did, for example. By contrast, I find that it's insufficiently complex when it comes to morale.
Stormonu wrote: X-wing is one of those games with rules simplicity but tactical complexity that I find very enjoyable.
On the other hand, I find X-Wing frighteningly complicated due to the hundreds of possible options available. If I were playing X-Wing all the time, and nothing else, I might manage to stay on top of all the possible upgrades, but playing casually ... nah. I'll stick to Luke and R2-D2 again, I think.
To me, what's important is complexity appropriate to the command level I'm playing. In 40k, as a company commander, I shouldn't need to worry that squad 3's missile launcher can't see because he's behind a big rock. That's the sergeant's job to worry about. Just chuck that stuff away and abstract it like AT-43 did, for example. By contrast, I find that it's insufficiently complex when it comes to morale.
Analysis Paralysis certainly is a thing - where there's just too many options to choose from that makes playing unfun, and the bane of many games (3E D&D became a victim, for example). A lot of people, as you indicated, will stick to a small subset they know and never branch out to try new options, even if they may be better (I'm somewhat the same with the Tie, Tie FO & Tie FO/SF - Tie is just fine for me, thanks).
As I have been doing my 40K replacement, I have found that you really don't want a given unit to have more than one or two unusual rules that you're keeping track of. It just gets too easy to forget something when a rule either doesn't apply to the entire force or is too similar, but not quite like, another special rule (like Relentless and Slow and Purposeful, or Rend and Shred - or the most annoying of all ATSKNF & Fearless).
Stormonu wrote: X-wing is one of those games with rules simplicity but tactical complexity that I find very enjoyable.
On the other hand, I find X-Wing frighteningly complicated due to the hundreds of possible options available. If I were playing X-Wing all the time, and nothing else, I might manage to stay on top of all the possible upgrades, but playing casually ... nah. I'll stick to Luke and R2-D2 again, I think.
To me, what's important is complexity appropriate to the command level I'm playing. In 40k, as a company commander, I shouldn't need to worry that squad 3's missile launcher can't see because he's behind a big rock. That's the sergeant's job to worry about. Just chuck that stuff away and abstract it like AT-43 did, for example. By contrast, I find that it's insufficiently complex when it comes to morale.
That is so true. At least on the other hand it will be easier to start and learn how to play the game with X-wing than say 40K or Warmahordes.
Another bad thing about 40K and Warmahordes and especially Warmahordes now, is all the FAQs/Errata now you have to keep up to date, and even worse if 40K becomes a "living" rule book with updated FAQs. That is even more to the mess than all the "options" we have in X-wing that will ever happen. I am not sure how it works for Warmahordes but in 40K it's what,
Codex FAQ>codex>Big Rule Book FAQ>BRB. Then add in supplements, not sure how that will fall into the equation.
If your Dwarf Greybeards don't move, they get a 2+ Armor Save = Depth.
If you get down on your knees and swear a blood oath of vengeance against your opponents family, your Dwarf Greybeards get a 2+ Armor Save = Complexity?
No, both of them are complexity. Depth is about how many interesting strategic decisions there are to make, complexity is about how many rules there are to memorize. ANY rule, no matter how much it adds to the game, increases complexity. The only question is whether or not that increased complexity is justified by increased depth (or increased representation of the fluff, etc). In the case of your examples the first rule adds complexity but also adds depth. There's a choice between a 2+ save on a static unit or a lesser save and the ability to move, a meaningful and interesting strategic decision. The second rule adds complexity but not any depth. You have to remember that the rule exists and humiliate yourself to activate it, but there's no strategic reason to ever not use it. From a pure game mechanics point of view this rule is just a more complicated way of putting a 2+ armor save in the unit's basic stat line.
I think there are other continuums of complexity in games other than simply tactical and rules.
For example, GW tries to expound their games as collaborative narrative devices, not just straight competitive affairs. I guess some untactical rules complexity might exist as a component of narrative complexity (which, using an earlier example, I suppose is what the chaos boon table attempts to achieve).
nareik wrote: I think there are other continuums of complexity in games other than simply tactical and rules.
For example, GW tries to expound their games as collaborative narrative devices, not just straight competitive affairs. I guess some untactical rules complexity might exist as a component of narrative complexity (which, using an earlier example, I suppose is what the chaos boon table attempts to achieve).
I disagree. RPGs manage to resolve a much wider range of situations than any GW game does and they do so, for the most part, with much less rule memorisation required as the vast majority of those situations are resolved using a core mechanic which is applied to them all.
So in DnD the standard method of resolving basically all mechanical situations, whether they are combat encounters, trying to get information from an NPC etc. is to roll your D20, apply modifiers and check against a required value. In FATE you roll your 4 fudge dice, add the resultant number of pluses and subtract minuses from your base skill level and compare to target number. In FFG40K you roll percentile dice, apply modifiers and compare to target number. And so on.
Good narrative games are built around streamlining the mechanics of actions in order to not get bogged down in rolling hundreds of dice and doing lots of maths in order to give the players more time to think of cool things they want to do and what they need to do in order to pull off one of those cool things. So a player in a DnD campaign could sacrifice their attack to instead try and disarm their opponent. They could try and flick it away with pure skill (Dexterity vs Reflex check) or smash it out of the opponents hand with brute force (Strength vs Fortitude check). The only thing which changes between either method is the numbers they are adding to their roll and the number they need to beat, never the actual method of resolving the situation.
With GW we have different systems for each type of attack (hitting with shooting (score based on your stat) is different to hitting in combat (score based on your stat vs opponents stat) and different to manifesting a psychic power (score based on the power rather than your stats)) and for some reason Leadership tests are rolled on 2D6 whilst other stat checks are a single D6, no matter what their value (so a S10 person is equally likely to fail a strength check as a S6 person whereas a LD6 person is much more likely to fail a leadership check than a LD10 person).
So the key to achieving narrative depth for players (maximise their options for creating a narrative in the manner they wish) is to minimise complexity as that frees the players from the confines of an overly complex system and so more thought can go to creating those cool narratives and making their characters do cool things. Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.
Gold standard for me is Star Fleet Battles, its complex for sure, but its also very well structured and the logic internally is consistent, plus everything is cross referenced.
You can beat your opponent to death with the rulebook, assuming you can actually lift it, but a phaser-1 is a phaser-1 on everything, factions tend not to have special rules as such, they have different, sometimes unique equipment which can be highly situational and hard to use - but it pretty much all hinges of a very simple set of core rules governing how starships move, attack, defend and repair themselves.
For all the rulebooks size you don't need it with you to play the game - try that with 40k, you have your ship record, a damage allocation sheet, a movement chart and likely a simple reference sheet for a few tables that are not worth remembering but useful enough to have about.
Say four sides of A4 to actually play the game, plus your ship and energy record, and the rules are structured so actually learning them is very simple - start out just moving, then the phasers come in, with shields etc before moving on.
There are no situations of 'this faction has Phaser-1s that are marginally better' - if they are only marginally better its forgotten about, if they are a lot better they are called something else.
Picked up playing that game in a few games, and had countless hours of entertainment out of it - including big multi-player games, easy to explain, easy to play because the rules are so comprehensive.
You want to fling a shuttlecraft against a sphere generator? the rules cover it, customise a missile with armour? yup its in there.
40k is a mess compared to it.
But 40k is also fun to play, just not as well structured.
@Davor- the many decks of cards is a dig on Arkham Horror. Tons of small decks of cards to separate out- but I never caught myself making tactical decisions based on them.
@Dark Traveller- I do believe that 'rules complexity' is really about complexity of gameplay experience. Sometimes some play aids (like unit cards) can allow for a lot more actual complexity without making it 'feel' more complex
And poorly organized rules adds complexity. I mean, riffling through sixteen pages of errata definitely feels complicated.
Kingdom Death is a good example of rules presented very well- the scenarios start you off with only the most basic of items, and each special rule is printed in full on the first item card you encounter with it.
In the end, the game ends up feeling very intuitive- even though there's a lot going on.
The rules for Undercity are probably less complex, but you have to learn all of them before you can play your first game- and some non-intuitive enemy activation priority rules make it feel more complex than it is.
(for the record, I do like to play Undercity even though I'm being critical of it).
@Town Called Malus- and Nereik- I think we're hitting on a different aspect all together. Yes, there are other continua for us to use, and Narrative is one of them.
My original post had a bias toward the "Gamist" aspects of games (manipulation of game elements to achieve victory). Those are the aspects that would not change if we swapped out all the minis for meeples.
There's also a narrative aspect, and I think that getting mileage out of that can be legitimate.
There's another element that you addressed earlier when you stated that you want to 'feel like a general' or 'feel like a sergeant.' That's a Simulationist perspective.
A game can go too far in any direction- an overly narrative focused game might forget to have some game balancing factors, while an overly simulation focused game will have you referencing five charts when you want to turn your starship around. Overly gamist games tend to have awful minis and no theme-game relationship.
By the way- I tend to prefer my RPGs have a healthy dose of Narrativism and Gamism in their system- if they swing too far in one direction or the other, they tend to break when we play them.
@Dark Traveller again- As for my own Holy Grail- I don't feel like there's only one.
I spend a lot of my current gaming time with Kingdom Death (the game does a really good job with long term and short term strategy as well as strong narrative elements done right).
I've also been playing a lot of Blood Bowl- which I feel does a really good job of having lots of tactical decisions within a very straightforward rules set.
Zombicide has done well by me also (I do prefer the Black Plague rules- the tweaks are nice).
On an odd note- I didn't really care for the old Mansions of Madness- but I really like the new one with the App. The difference is that the APP runs a lot of the setup time for you, so the game begins to feel a whole lot less complex (basically you're being GMed by a robot... but really, it works). Which works really well for it.
I think those are the games I'm mostly recommending right now.
I have played some realistic wargames with a lot of rules, the point is when it make sense it is usually not a problem.
Games like x-wing and magic the gathering are simple in concept but complex in set up and decks, same with warmahordes it is the many combinations that make the game complex while the game mechanics itself are not so difficult.
I have no problem with it, but it makes it less fun to play against people who are tournament players, who come up with all those synergy combinations.
Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.
Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.
nareik wrote: I think there are other continuums of complexity in games other than simply tactical and rules.
For example, GW tries to expound their games as collaborative narrative devices, not just straight competitive affairs. I guess some untactical rules complexity might exist as a component of narrative complexity (which, using an earlier example, I suppose is what the chaos boon table attempts to achieve).
I disagree. RPGs manage to resolve a much wider range of situations than any GW game does and they do so, for the most part, with much less rule memorisation required as the vast majority of those situations are resolved using a core mechanic which is applied to them all.
So in DnD the standard method of resolving basically all mechanical situations, whether they are combat encounters, trying to get information from an NPC etc. is to roll your D20, apply modifiers and check against a required value.
In FATE you roll your 4 fudge dice, add the resultant number of pluses and subtract minuses from your base skill level and compare to target number.
In FFG40K you roll percentile dice, apply modifiers and compare to target number.
And so on.
Good narrative games are built around streamlining the mechanics of actions in order to not get bogged down in rolling hundreds of dice and doing lots of maths in order to give the players more time to think of cool things they want to do and what they need to do in order to pull off one of those cool things. So a player in a DnD campaign could sacrifice their attack to instead try and disarm their opponent. They could try and flick it away with pure skill (Dexterity vs Reflex check) or smash it out of the opponents hand with brute force (Strength vs Fortitude check). The only thing which changes between either method is the numbers they are adding to their roll and the number they need to beat, never the actual method of resolving the situation.
With GW we have different systems for each type of attack (hitting with shooting (score based on your stat) is different to hitting in combat (score based on your stat vs opponents stat) and different to manifesting a psychic power (score based on the power rather than your stats)) and for some reason Leadership tests are rolled on 2D6 whilst other stat checks are a single D6, no matter what their value (so a S10 person is equally likely to fail a strength check as a S6 person whereas a LD6 person is much more likely to fail a leadership check than a LD10 person).
So the key to achieving narrative depth for players (maximise their options for creating a narrative in the manner they wish) is to minimise complexity as that frees the players from the confines of an overly complex system and so more thought can go to creating those cool narratives and making their characters do cool things.
Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.
Aren't these instances more about resolving a narrative generated by the player or GM rather than generating narrative natively? I played AD&D 2nd ed a long time ago so am not too familiar with the mechanics anymore.I do remember our GM frequently proclaiming it being 'the only game in the world where the players don't need to know the rules'.
In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.
Basically, the more time you get to spend on how to use the rules to your advantage, the more tactical the game becomes.
The more time you spend just understanding and respecting the rules, the less time you get to spend on how to take advantage of these.
The more complex the ruleset, the slower any simulation becomes as well, so there's a compound effect.
That's why I think Chess has far more tactical complexity than any wargame, and also why many video games have more tactical complexity than war games.
There is little to no time spent understanding the rules, and everything else is on what to do within the framework of the rules.
I think that's also why you see much stronger competition in Chess, Video games (SC, SC2, ... ) than in board games, where the rules engine is human, and the balance too complex to be precise.
I can only imagine a best of 10 games of 40K... how long that would take ...
There were discussions about rules vs rules interactions, something that shows how 40K rules are "bloated" and how WMH rules are "interactive" - I personally consider both of these an indicator of complexity.
In the end, you need to understand all rules + all interactions to have a good picture, and I doubt the exponential combo possibilities are going to end up drawing a simpler continuum of rules + combinations.
This is an interesting post, Morgorgoth, and it reminds me of what I read while I was studying sports psychology at college; you go through stages of learning the movements, learning when to use the movements, and finally being able to understand these things without thinking, allowing you to spend your attention on situational awareness and planning. Obviously there isn't a physical intelligence aspect to wargaming, but learning the rules of the game and when to apply them is a pretty close proxy.
morgoth wrote: In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.
I don't really think any general trend could be found. If the rules are a mess because of the complexity it'll tend to reduce tactical complexity because the game becomes more about figuring out the mess rather than the complexity.
In general I dislike rules complexity within the core rules and exceptions to the core rules, but like it if the core rules are flexibile enough to maintain variety within the forces you can field.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgoth wrote: I think that's also why you see much stronger competition in Chess, Video games (SC, SC2, ... ) than in board games, where the rules engine is human, and the balance too complex to be precise.
It's more a case of what competitive people are drawn to. And it's less an issue of "too complex to be precise" and simply "not precise at all". You can have rules that are simple but not precise or not well suited to competitive play.
AllSeeingSking, I am interested in what you say about complexity. You mention simplicity and lack of exceptions to core rules.
Regarding 40K how do you feel about the basic army lists that came with 2nd ed and the 3rd ed BRB compared to the codex (or later codex/supplement/dataslate) system?
Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.
Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.
I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction
Aren't these instances more about resolving a narrative generated by the player or GM rather than generating narrative natively? I played AD&D 2nd ed a long time ago so am not too familiar with the mechanics anymore.I do remember our GM frequently proclaiming it being 'the only game in the world where the players don't need to know the rules'.
I suppose so but I find that players are more likely to come up with interesting actions in game which add to the narrative of the game when they have some inkling as to how it will play out and their rough chances of success.
2nd edition had a lot things rolled by the GM rather than the players, even when it was an action which the player character was doing. Whilst this did mean that the players didn't need to be as fluent in the rules it could also create the situation of players having no concept of the difficulty of tasks relative to their characters skill. A player who tried to find traps and failed didn't know whether they failed because they rolled poorly or because the traps were very well hidden or of a nature undetectable by normal means as the player didn't see what their dice score to find traps was as it was rolled behind the GMs screen.
By having the player rolling they can see how well they roll. If it is low they narrative could be that their character only took a brief glance over the hallway, whereas if it is high the narrative could be that they carefully examine the stonework for slightly raised cobbles which could indicate a pressure plate. If that high roll then fails to detect the trap that a player then triggers, the player could deduce that is due to the traps being extremely well hidden rather than their character just being unobservant, so even though the player failed the roll, they still gain information about the situation from that failure.
So in a good system, the resolution of a narrative situation should naturally lead to the generation of more narrative threads.
I think the level of acceptable complexity is determined solely by the consumer (with the goal perhaps being to find the largest group who finds your rules acceptable?). I'm sure anyone who's been to gaming conventions has seen the two guys in their 60's playing a hex-based Avalon Hill game for eight hours straight. Some of those games are pretty complex with a ton of tables/charts/etc. (anyone ever play Advanced Squad Leader?) At the other end of the spectrum is perhaps CCGs and games like Warhammer 40K. A simpler game with a much larger audience - let's not confuse number of rules with complexity.
I can enjoy a broad range. Dragon Rampant (Lion Rampant) is an excellent example of a stupendously simple rule set which provides a fun game. I can also enjoy a seriously chunky game like Fireball Forward etc.
The way information is presented is also a big determining factor. Myth, for example, is one of the very worst designed games I've ever experienced (despite trying it several times). The rulebooks are terrible, the flow of information awful, the cards are ambiguously worded, and icons are repetitive and unidentifiable. My group tried it several times and came away horribly unimpressed each time.
Being a game designer, my biggest compliment is when people at conventions pick up the rules and run with them by turn two (or when I'm running a game for new friends and they openly say "man, I get it...this is cool" and they can play the game with minimal need of me guiding them).
Having no idea as to the difficulty of a task does not create a more 'tactical' choice for a player- although it can create an interesting narrative. As I stated before, the argument I put forward favors the gamist side of things- and knowing how hard something is to do and deciding based on that is a very gamist and strategic thing to be doing.
morgoth wrote: In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.
Basically, the more time you get to spend on how to use the rules to your advantage, the more tactical the game becomes.
I disagree with you on this, but I see where you're coming from.
The trouble with your idea is that it doesn't hold true at the extreme end. Candy Land is probably the simplest rules set I've ever played (much simpler than chess) but it is also the least strategic I've ever played.
In the end it is all about the user experience- and you're right about that. Some rules add to the tactical complexity by giving you interesting situations to deal with. Others detract from the tactical complexity because they simply give you more to track.
There's a lot of added complexity in wargames- but the question is how much that complexity leads to interesting tactical situations, and how much it leads to time spend enacting rules without any thinking.
One thing you hit on is the presentation. When you're playing a videogame, there's a lot of complexity to the system that you don't see or interact with. You just put your units here or there and go, right? It is an extreme example of how a game's presentation changes the complexity to play it. Likewise, having lots of different books where the rules are located makes a game feel more complex, while good player aids and presentation makes the game feel less complex (even if the rules are exactly the same).
nareik wrote: This is an interesting post, Morgorgoth, and it reminds me of what I read while I was studying sports psychology at college; you go through stages of learning the movements, learning when to use the movements, and finally being able to understand these things without thinking, allowing you to spend your attention on situational awareness and planning. Obviously there isn't a physical intelligence aspect to wargaming, but learning the rules of the game and when to apply them is a pretty close proxy.
nareik wrote: AllSeeingSking, I am interested in what you say about complexity. You mention simplicity and lack of exceptions to core rules.
Regarding 40K how do you feel about the basic army lists that came with 2nd ed and the 3rd ed BRB compared to the codex (or later codex/supplement/dataslate) system?
You mean like the Codex Imperialis in 2nd edition? I actually can't remember what 3rd edition had, did they have a bunch of army rules in the BRB as well?
I don't have anything against either putting stuff in a Codex Imperialis or having separate codices. The Codex Imperialis was largely incomplete though. Something like "Ravening Hordes" for WHFB was great I thought.
But I don't mind either system, codices are good for fleshing out the fluff of an army (though I think they're often written in a messy and convoluted fashion as far as the rules themselves are concerned), I think either way the codices should be aiming to work within the framework established by the core rules rather than adding additional special rules, overturning existing core rules or injecting themselves in the middle of existing rules.
Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:
Diversity
Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.
There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.
KiloFiX wrote: Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:
Diversity
Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.
There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.
Diversity is kind of what I talked about indirectly in my previous post. The core rules IMO should be simply but flexible enough to maintain variety without having to pile special rule on top of special rule.
I'd actually disagree that chess is a very deep game. Remember, chess is a solved game. A computer can always make the optimal play and will (almost?) always beat even the best human opponents. The set of possible game states is relatively small, and there is no hidden information element. It's just too simple for there to be any unpredictability, and the game comes down to which player has done a better job of memorizing the optimal solutions and avoiding mistakes.
Peregrine wrote: I'd actually disagree that chess is a very deep game. Remember, chess is a solved game. A computer can always make the optimal play and will (almost?) always beat even the best human opponents. The set of possible game states is relatively small, and there is no hidden information element. It's just too simple for there to be any unpredictability, and the game comes down to which player has done a better job of memorizing the optimal solutions and avoiding mistakes.
I don't really think that's a great measure of depth as just because a computer can have a decision tree based on all possible game outcomes only an exceptional human would be able to do something similar so in practice it's not a useful measure of complexity. A chess computer might know all possible game outcomes (roughly 10^120) and be able to narrow down on the most likely one to win the game currently being played, a game like 40k might have many more possible outcomes but the decision tree for any given moment in the game isn't necessarily all that complicated.
You could program a computer to always make the "right" choice in a game like 40k as well, it's just the random element means even if you always make the right choice it doesn't mean the computer would always win.
I just don't think anyone would bother trying to write a good 40k playing code, not because it's hard but because people aren't going to be bothered.
HI folks.
if we limit the discussion to just war games , then the elements of the game play are much easier to define IMO.
I like to call all the decision making before the game starts, Strategic choices.
As this involves the strategic deployment of troops. EG force selection , the mission objectives and deployment on the table.(These are usually assigned at a strategic level by higher command level than ther players.)
I like to call the decision making in game the Tactical choices. As these are game decisions made in response to the developing tactical situation as the game progresses.These represent the unit commanders/individuals taking on the spot tactical action to counter enemy action .
There are two sorts of war game-
Abstract, like Chess.With simple rules that just focus on tactical interaction between the players.The rules are simple as there is no direct real world counter part the players can use to guide them in the game play.
Simulation, like X-wing.These follow a well known real world concept to allow players to recreate combat types they have seen in films etc.
The level of rule complication can be higher in simulation type games , as long as the resulting game play is intuitive.
IMO the narrative in the game should be confined to the background of the forces, and the mission they are on.
To enrich the strategic elements of the game play, which do not have the depth of action and excitement the tactical in game actions have.
IMO, the game narrative gets the players to the table, after that the players generate their own narrative from clearly defined intuitive rules.
If players have to use narrative to explain away poor counter intuitive game play , then things have gone horribly wrong.
Peregrine wrote: I'd actually disagree that chess is a very deep game. Remember, chess is a solved game. A computer can always make the optimal play and will (almost?) always beat even the best human opponents. The set of possible game states is relatively small, and there is no hidden information element. It's just too simple for there to be any unpredictability, and the game comes down to which player has done a better job of memorizing the optimal solutions and avoiding mistakes.
The depth of knowledge about chess is far more important than that of knowledge about other games.
Humans haven't been able to beat supercomputers at chess for a while now.
The game is a lot more complex than you present, but it is indeed solved.
Do not forget that pro chess players generally have spent far more time perfecting their play than anyone in any other game discipline, so it doesn't make much sense to be reductive when talking about chess.
morgoth wrote: In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.
I don't really think any general trend could be found. If the rules are a mess because of the complexity it'll tend to reduce tactical complexity because the game becomes more about figuring out the mess rather than the complexity.
In general I dislike rules complexity within the core rules and exceptions to the core rules, but like it if the core rules are flexibile enough to maintain variety within the forces you can field.
That sounds a lot like: "I don't like 40K's complexity and I like WMH's complexity".
It's a valid opinion but I don't think it helps with the discussion.
I highly doubt WMH's complexity is more desirable than 40K's just based on its modularity.
One way to look at 40K is to say that many specific rules were regrouped under generic rules and their interactions managed within the core rules, which is a good thing we need a lot more of to call it all simple.
morgoth wrote: In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.
I don't really think any general trend could be found. If the rules are a mess because of the complexity it'll tend to reduce tactical complexity because the game becomes more about figuring out the mess rather than the complexity.
In general I dislike rules complexity within the core rules and exceptions to the core rules, but like it if the core rules are flexibile enough to maintain variety within the forces you can field.
That sounds a lot like: "I don't like 40K's complexity and I like WMH's complexity".
It's a valid opinion but I don't think it helps with the discussion.
I highly doubt WMH's complexity is more desirable than 40K's just based on its modularity.
One way to look at 40K is to say that many specific rules were regrouped under generic rules and their interactions managed within the core rules, which is a good thing we need a lot more of to call it all simple.
I actually don't really like either game for different reasons. I don't actually have a huge amount of experience with WMH to know if what I described is how WMH handles things
The thing I don't like about 40k's complexity is it comes from 40k's current iteration actually being based on a heavily simplified ruleset. The current 40k rules date back to 3rd edition when the goal was to heavily simplify and streamline the rules compared to 2nd edition which was a bit of a mess.
The complexity we have now in 40k comes from the developers wanting more variety but also not wanting to rewrite the core rules, so they've just stacked special rule on top of special rule on top of exceptions to special rules to make it work.
I think the movement system is a good example. 3rd edition got away from using a movement characteristic - thus they simplified the stat line. But all that means is to have variety in the way units move you need complicated rules to handle lots of different situations and unit types - thus added complexity to both core rules and additional special rules.
A movement stat, IMO, is a better way to go, it is simpler and inherently allows for a wide variety with minimal special rules and exceptions.
I think in if you ever write a set of rules for something like, I dunno, a certain unit type, and those rules consume a whole page, maybe you should be asking yourself "why?", and I don't think that's a question GW have asked of 40k for a while.
KiloFiX wrote:Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:
Diversity
Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.
There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.
I don't get it. Diversity? Now we are throwing in a new word. How is that any different from depth? If it's not depth then how is it different from rules bloat or just added extra rules? Doesn't diversity mean something different? So that would be like saying someone finds baseball boring but finds hockey exciting because it has more action. So the diversity is that it plays differently. Or in 40K terms someone wants more diversity, you don't play X-wing from 40K because it's still a miniature game so they go onto playing poker or Magic the Gathering or video games. To me that is diversity.
So not sure how diversity comes into play say something like 40K vs Age of Sigmar to X wing. They are all the same. Miniature games.
KiloFiX wrote:Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:
Diversity
Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.
There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.
I don't get it. Diversity? Now we are throwing in a new word. How is that any different from depth? If it's not depth then how is it different from rules bloat or just added extra rules? Doesn't diversity mean something different? So that would be like saying someone finds baseball boring but finds hockey exciting because it has more action. So the diversity is that it plays differently. Or in 40K terms someone wants more diversity, you don't play X-wing from 40K because it's still a miniature game so they go onto playing poker or Magic the Gathering or video games. To me that is diversity.
So not sure how diversity comes into play say something like 40K vs Age of Sigmar to X wing. They are all the same. Miniature games.
What I mean by diversity is simply, Space Marines look and play differently from Eldar.
Even if you have perfectly low rules complexity and perfectly high tactical depth, some people might not be happy with Space Marines vs Space Marines.
KiloFiX wrote:Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:
Diversity
Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.
There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.
I don't get it. Diversity? Now we are throwing in a new word. How is that any different from depth? If it's not depth then how is it different from rules bloat or just added extra rules? Doesn't diversity mean something different? So that would be like saying someone finds baseball boring but finds hockey exciting because it has more action. So the diversity is that it plays differently. Or in 40K terms someone wants more diversity, you don't play X-wing from 40K because it's still a miniature game so they go onto playing poker or Magic the Gathering or video games. To me that is diversity.
So not sure how diversity comes into play say something like 40K vs Age of Sigmar to X wing. They are all the same. Miniature games.
What I mean by diversity is simply, Space Marines look and play differently from Eldar.
Even if you have perfectly low rules complexity and perfectly high tactical depth, some people might not be happy with Space Marines vs Space Marines.
I believe the classic solution is for the designer to suggest sticking cocktail sticks to the models.
This raises a question. Should I chaosify my white or black chess pieces?
@KiloFix.
I you want the different units to behave and interact differently enough to make diverse tactical interaction happen naturtaly from straight forward rules.
You simply have to make sure the stat line is doing its job properly.
Otherwise you end up with simple stat lines that means nothing much in game terms, so you have to rely heavily on special rules to add this difference back in later.
Why can so many other war games have such tactical depth and diversity , with rule set many times less complicated than 40k 7th ed?
Well its because the rules are written with the specific game play in mind.(Rather than just short sighted focus on short term sales like GW do.)
I'm sorry if someone said this already, but a game can be as complex as you are willing to make it be so. In meaning, it depends entirely on who I choose to play. Look at M:tG, you can play aggro weenie rush, or you can play superfriends. You can play slivers, or elves. All have varying levels of complexity. Do I choose to have a turn where I draw a card, play a land, play a creature, attack, resolve damage and end my turn, or do I use planeswalkers that I can activate multiple times a turn, every turn (Teferi + Chain Veil)? Do we play a counterspell game or a Storm game?
Warhammer has the same choices. Did you bring models that can move in the movement phase? Or models that can use psychic powers? or able to shoot? or supposed to win in assault? did you bring buffing units or more guns? Do you choose to use the erratas, or use the rules that you are entitled to in your units? For instance, I play Tau, and I make a conscious decision as to how I wish to play, (what level I choose to play at against a player, beginning, casual, or WAC?) Do I use the EWOs on my stormurge, or my Target locks on my suits? did I bring markerlights?
Warmachine is another one. . . do you use a jack army or choose to use combined arms? or only the free points in jacks and the rest in infantry? Do you feat, or choose not to? When?
I think 40k has a split personality, it's either a war game that thinks it's a DnD game. Or it's a DnD game, trying to be a wargame, like historical wargame. To many books, to many random rolls.
What I mean by diversity is simply, Space Marines look and play differently from Eldar.
Even if you have perfectly low rules complexity and perfectly high tactical depth, some people might not be happy with Space Marines vs Space Marines.
I get it now. I would take that as depth not diversity, like how the Chess pieces play differently from each other than say like checkers. I see where you are coming from thanks for you explanation. Too bad we had this "diversity" but GW had to give rules that Eldar/Tyranids have and give it to everyone so Space Marines could get those rules for free.
Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same. There does the depth/diversity of the game now.
Hopefully 8th edition fixes this and does an Age of Sigmar by throwing the baby with the bath water this time but this time don't be lazy and do an actual reboot of the game.
Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same.
I wonder if anyone who does play the game regularly and competitively agrees with your statement.
My personal rubric for gaming enjoyment prioritizes ease of play and low complexity. I like tactical enjoyment but not enough to move up in complexity. For me, almost nothing justifies high levels of complexity, layers of special rules, etc .
Thus for me, I can immediately discard games like Warmachine and virtually all editions of 40k along with games like Battletech as well.
That is not to say that all simple games are my cup-o-tea, but there are more than enough games that offer a streamlined game experience and tactical choices. Games like Song of Blades, Dragon Rampant, Alpha Strike, Mech Attack and Kings of War offer such experiences.
Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same.
I wonder if anyone who does play the game regularly and competitively agrees with your statement.
‘Complex’ is the opposite of ‘simple’; ‘complicated’ is more like the opposite of ‘easy’.
The two are often related (with complex things being complicated and vice versa), but not always.
If something is complex, it means that its structure is not simple; it may be made up of many parts and/or its component parts may be connected together in a non-trivial way.
If something is complicated, then it is difficult to use.
Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.
Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.
I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction
I think he referred to the original game -- OD&D, which had none of the nonsense you cite. Nor did AD&D 1e have much of it. (It did have a profusion of charts.) 2e was published to spite Gygax.
OT: what the OP referred to as rules complexity is really called complication. All the procedures a player must complete to resolve a given situation. Roll a die and consult a chart--> simple. Roll multiple dice ( to hit and then to wound) with each requiring charts of their own, and then roll more dice for saves of some sort -->Needlessly complicated. Because it can be done with 2 dice rolls. And one chart. Call this mechanical complication. Rules complication, this comes when there are so many rules that determining the interactions becomes a chore.
Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.
Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.
I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction
I think he referred to the original game -- OD&D, which had none of the nonsense you cite. Nor did AD&D 1e have much of it. (It did have a profusion of charts.) 2e was published to spite Gygax.
Hey, watch it - 2E was the highlight of my D&D years, so don't try and put words in my mouth. 1E did have a lot of different systems (Thief chances, Ranger surprise rolls, psionics, etc.) compared to 3E's unified system, but I was never satisfied with 1E. Never got to experience OD&D, beyond a short stint of Holmes basic.
Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.
Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.
I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction
I think he referred to the original game -- OD&D, which had none of the nonsense you cite. Nor did AD&D 1e have much of it. (It did have a profusion of charts.) 2e was published to spite Gygax.
Hey, watch it - 2E was the highlight of my D&D years, so don't try and put words in my mouth. 1E did have a lot of different systems (Thief chances, Ranger surprise rolls, psionics, etc.) compared to 3E's unified system, but I was never satisfied with 1E. Never got to experience OD&D, beyond a short stint of Holmes basic.
3e also finally rid the game of THAC0, thank the gods!
For 2e and late 1e the thing that stood out was the excellence of much of the setting material, and the settings themselves. (I loved Birthright and Ravenloft - and I still run the campaign that had its roots in A Mighty Fortress.)
System wise, 2e started strong and then started falling apart at the edges. (Not consistently - I liked the Player's Options books, but then you had The Complete Book of Elf Cheese....)
Until 4e, I liked each iteration of the game better than the one before. I might like 5e, if ever I have cause to play it. But 4e... ticked me off something wicked.
Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.
Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.
I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction
I think he referred to the original game -- OD&D, which had none of the nonsense you cite. Nor did AD&D 1e have much of it. (It did have a profusion of charts.) 2e was published to spite Gygax.
Hey, watch it - 2E was the highlight of my D&D years, so don't try and put words in my mouth. 1E did have a lot of different systems (Thief chances, Ranger surprise rolls, psionics, etc.) compared to 3E's unified system, but I was never satisfied with 1E. Never got to experience OD&D, beyond a short stint of Holmes basic.
3e also finally rid the game of THAC0, thank the gods!
For 2e and late 1e the thing that stood out was the excellence of much of the setting material, and the settings themselves. (I loved Birthright and Ravenloft - and I still run the campaign that had its roots in A Mighty Fortress.)
System wise, 2e started strong and then started falling apart at the edges. (Not consistently - I liked the Player's Options books, but then you had The Complete Book of Elf Cheese....)
Until 4e, I liked each iteration of the game better than the one before. I might like 5e, if ever I have cause to play it. But 4e... ticked me off something wicked.
The Auld Grump
I see the same rage 4E D&D brought to the fore that AoS brought to the WHFB, and GW being unwilling to admit they may have ticked off a portion of their customer base. Personally, I see a lot of parallels to the rise of 9th Age and Kings of War to games like Pathfinder, Dungeon Crawl Classics and the OSR movement. With the coming 8th edition of 40K, I'm wondering what lessons Games Workshop will have taken away from AoS - do they see it as a financial coup and will do the same to 40K - blow up the galaxy and a revamped system the old guard hates - or did they feel a sting with customers leaving and may pull a 5th edition (D&D) remake trying to streamline rules with nods to the past and only slight touches to the fluff? The way they did the FAQ, and the fact there's been no widespread playtest among the fanbase makes me think the former is coming, not the latter. I get the impression they feel boxed in by 30-year-old fluff and rules, and are eager to heave it out the window and start anew - in the same sort of manner Disney dumped Star Wars expanded universe, but is pulling in the "best" bits into what is essentially new material (Rogue One, Rebels, even the "alternate future" of The Force Awakens).
In other words, I don't think that GW has learned they need to put the proper analysis into their ruleset - they're going to continue to wing it, basing the rules off the model and not any sort of in-game balancing and study of game mechanics & interactions.
Another aspect of complexity is the addition of random elements that limit the effectiveness of tactics - increased random chance aids the inexperienced player.
GW is not alone in that regard, nor is it a recent problem for GW - random wonkiness in GW games go back to at least Rogue Trader and Realms of Chaos.
On the flip side, there are those games that eliminate random chance entirely chess is one example, the old but excellent Trillion Credit Squadron for Traveller is another - but in general I do like having some measure of random chance, I just don't like it driving the game.
Not exactly sure where the 'funny' aspects of some of the AoS warscrolls falls in regards to complexity - I think that sometimes there are things that count as 'just plain dumb'.
TheAuldGrump wrote: random wonkiness in GW games go back to at least Rogue Trader and Realms of Chaos.
That was kinda okay. RT feels like a wargame/RPG hybrid that even encourages having a game master so one could actually "forge the narrative" and collaborate. The game grew into a real skirmish game (2nd edition) and moved to todays quasi-Epic but never lost abilities that rely on arbitrary randomness.
Stormonu wrote: Hey, watch it - 2E was the highlight of my D&D years, so don't try and put words in my mouth. 1E did have a lot of different systems (Thief chances, Ranger surprise rolls, psionics, etc.) compared to 3E's unified system, but I was never satisfied with 1E. Never got to experience OD&D, beyond a short stint of Holmes basic.
Not my intent to put words in your mouth, which is why I said that "I think you meant..." rather than saying, "you meant...". No matter. Holmes Basic should have given you a good glimpse of the original game. Overall, 2e was very much not to my liking, but I started with Holmes in '78, then onto the 3 LBBs before there was even an AD&D players handbook, so I freely admit my bias for the original and then for 1e, flawed as they were. However, the point of the game was to enjoy playing, and if you enjoyed 2e, that's great. I won't hold it against you.
As an "Old School" player, I like 5e. It's not perfect. Nothing is. But it represents a significant reduction in all the complications that crept into the game.
For 2e and late 1e the thing that stood out was the excellence of much of the setting material, and the settings themselves. (I loved Birthright and Ravenloft - and I still run the campaign that had its roots in A Mighty Fortress.)
System wise, 2e started strong and then started falling apart at the edges. (Not consistently - I liked the Player's Options books, but then you had The Complete Book of Elf Cheese....)
Until 4e, I liked each iteration of the game better than the one before. I might like 5e, if ever I have cause to play it. But 4e... ticked me off something wicked.
The Auld Grump
Give 5e a look, it is very much a back to basics version. 4e was a skirmish game rather than a RPG, really. Not a bad one either,from what I've see.
I had to look THAC0 up. I had forgotten what a mess it was. For those of you who do not know...
THAC0-- To Hit Armor Class Zero (0)-- is determined by consulting a chart, and then is modified by a variety of situational bonuses and subtractions. Beginning THAC0 was 20 for all characters.
Subtract the Armor Class of the target from the attacker's THAC0 (if the Armor Class is a negative number, one adds it to the THAC0) The Character has to roll the resulting number or higher on a d20 in order to hit. There were many potential modifiers. Lots of 'procedure' here.
Previously (to the THAC0 system) the rule was: consult a chart that cross references character class+level with target AC and roll that number or higher. The die roll was modified, not the target number and not the target AC, by bonuses/subtractions. There were some potential modifiers. Perhaps too many.
Current rule is: roll a d20. Modify the role with bonuses/subtractions. If it equals or exceeds target AC, the character hits. There are also very few modifiers. Most are handled by giving the action an advantage or disadvantage, rather than adjusting target numbers or dice rolls. Simples.
The THAC0 system is an example of a complication, especially compared to the current rule. It added nothing to the complexity of the game play.
(To be fair, the 2e initiative system was much nicer than the 1e version. The 1e version was complication times ten. Ugh.)
Game play improves, IMHO, when the game's procedures are just enough and no more to get the job done.
I agree with Peregrine and Extra Credit in that the question of complexity is ultimately a cost/benefit analysis.
Every rule costs you something in terms of game design.
The salient question is how much bang you get for your buck.
People have different ideas about what sort of value proposition they are willing to accept in a game, and that seems to be the OP's question.
The difficulty is that the answer is largely a matter of individual taste.
That said, I think we can all agree that more depth in fewer rules is always more valuable. In other words, the more 'value' a rule provides in terms of player choice, outcome variance, etc. etc., the better.
Of course, a game system is a gestalt of all the rules, and so you have to look at the 'value' of the system as a whole rather than the value of specific rules in isolation. This is not to say that a minor change to a rule set cannot have a strong impact on the 'value' of other rules in the system, hence the ubiquitous 'house rule'.
But riding on top of all of this cerebral BS is the question of experience. And that's an elusive beast. It's why there are so many different games with very, very similar rules systems. I mean, take any wargame and you are looking at broad swath of fairly universal rules concepts.
As game designers, we are all chasing the dragon, trying to find that perfect mix tailored to titillate our target audience. It's like making a common recipe, such as pumpkin pie. Everyone uses mostly the same ingredients, the process is by and large the same, but there's a wide world of sensory variation from inedible to incomprehensibly divine. And while you can set some broad benchmarks for quality, to the individual consumer, personal taste and preference is a big part of the equation.
And that's because we're not very different at the end of the day.
HI folks.
I believe the game play complexity should be set to suit the target audience.
If its a game for 8 years and up, then it is going to much simpler than a challenging war game for mature experienced war gamers.
I try to use the term complexity to mean multiple interconnected functions/interactions.
EG It is a tactically complex because lots of elements of game play interact to give the end result .
And complicated to describe unnecessary instructions /elements , that just add to the level of confusion without adding anything meaningful to the game play.
So I agree with others that the optimum game play complexity is established first.(Eg part of the primary design brief to attract the primary demographic.)
But what ever the level of game play complexity, the level of over complication in the rules should be kept to a minimum.
Eg game play complexity is a matter of personal preference, but over complicated rules are always bad.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Another aspect of complexity is the addition of random elements that limit the effectiveness of tactics - increased random chance aids the inexperienced player.
GW is not alone in that regard, nor is it a recent problem for GW - random wonkiness in GW games go back to at least Rogue Trader and Realms of Chaos.
On the flip side, there are those games that eliminate random chance entirely chess is one example, the old but excellent Trillion Credit Squadron for Traveller is another - but in general I do like having some measure of random chance, I just don't like it driving the game.
Not exactly sure where the 'funny' aspects of some of the AoS warscrolls falls in regards to complexity - I think that sometimes there are things that count as 'just plain dumb'.
The Auld Grump
I actually think the random elements work both ends; they reward players able to contingency plans and make risk/reward decisions, as well as giving 'come back opportunities' to novices that really have nothing to lose.
Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same.
I wonder if anyone who does play the game regularly and competitively agrees with your statement.
What did I say that is false?
Your statement is not proper English, and its contents are the reflection of a poor understanding of the game.
Go ask a serious 40K player if he feels CentuBomb plays like ScreamerStar.
I'm picking, on purpose, two armies that are psy-deathstar-based so that you may be as close as possible (no point in asking whether gladius marines play like scatbike Eldar ...)
Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same.
I wonder if anyone who does play the game regularly and competitively agrees with your statement.
What did I say that is false?
Your statement is not proper English, and its contents are the reflection of a poor understanding of the game.
Go ask a serious 40K player if he feels CentuBomb plays like ScreamerStar.
I'm picking, on purpose, two armies that are psy-deathstar-based so that you may be as close as possible (no point in asking whether gladius marines play like scatbike Eldar ...)
Not a clue what you said. Sorry I am not nerdish/geekish enough to understand that. Not proper English? CentuBomb and ScreamerStar is proper English. Even the autocorrect doesn't recognize it. So what is not proper English that I didn't say?
Let's see. There was movement stats. Now Everyone moves 6". Now it's less complex or diverse. Also Space Marines got a free 2" boost while other armies like Eldar and Tyranids have become slower while paying more points or no point reduction to compensate.
Now Space Marines no longer have to choose what grenades or missiles they must take. They have both now. Maybe that is different that they don't have to choose but other armies still have to choose either this or that.
Shall I go on, or is that not proper English for you, or nerdy enough?
I do think a game can be over-complex, but it's a scale that depends in part on the audience/players. For ex. I love the aesthetics of Infinity but I feel like their rules system is an over-complicated mess with tons of special rules and most rules having multiple levels (some that trump others) it just makes it ridiculous.
The tactical movement that's inherent in the base system, the shooting/overwatch, the opposed rolls are all great and do add tactical choices. The 17 different hacking devices and levels of martial arts no so much.
On the opposite side of the spectrum of games I'm familiar with enough to speak on is 40k. The way the system is built mechanically with d6s and combat charts means there's very little gradation, there's not a spectrum of chances really. In addition the simplistic move/shoot/assault means there's not many tactical decisions outside of which unit to target.
Warmachine is my in the middle game, there's tactical choices in how spells and feats are employed, and they have gotten a lot of special rule bloat but there's not a bunch of different versions of the Stealth or Gunslinger abilities for ex..
---
I would say complexity is having multiple ways to approach the game or situations in the game. So it would be a game that could handle forces that are represented as stealthy and quick, slow and powerful, etc. It would be say having all the DnD classes playable. Lack of complexity is the stereotypical everyone is space marines - everyone hits at a certain number, armour saves on a certain number, etc.
A good level of complexity is where I have choices and abilities that can allow my preferred approach to situations in game. A bad level of complexity is where I need to constantly look at the rulebook to figure out what certain things do.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Another aspect of complexity is the addition of random elements that limit the effectiveness of tactics - increased random chance aids the inexperienced player.
GW is not alone in that regard, nor is it a recent problem for GW - random wonkiness in GW games go back to at least Rogue Trader and Realms of Chaos.
On the flip side, there are those games that eliminate random chance entirely chess is one example, the old but excellent Trillion Credit Squadron for Traveller is another - but in general I do like having some measure of random chance, I just don't like it driving the game.
Not exactly sure where the 'funny' aspects of some of the AoS warscrolls falls in regards to complexity - I think that sometimes there are things that count as 'just plain dumb'.
The Auld Grump
I actually think the random elements work both ends; they reward players able to contingency plans and make risk/reward decisions, as well as giving 'come back opportunities' to novices that really have nothing to lose.
Most of the Random tables (Warlord Traits, Psionic Powers, Chaos boons) in 40K strike me as not being so much a feeble balancing attempt so much as an attempt to keep the game fresh and unique so it doesn't stagnate with the same builds and tactics over and over. Which actually I really dislike. If most of those random options were simply better balanced/costed, more of them would see actual use among the player base, rather than being ignored, rerolled or the player desperation wracking his brain to figure out how to get use with the result in his/her current army.
On the opposite end of that is the Randumb tables (Ork weapon malfunctions, warpstorms, Helbrute insanity, mob rule, instinctual behavior) are just plain bad attempts to compensate for actual rules balance. "I win" on a 6 vs. "I lose" on a 1 involves no tactical decision, just bad consequences for either you or your opponent, and should be removed with all due haste. The game already rewards good rolls and punishes bad; throwing ever more unbalancing results at each end of the spectrum doesn't make the game any better.
Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same.
I wonder if anyone who does play the game regularly and competitively agrees with your statement.
What did I say that is false?
Your statement is not proper English, and its contents are the reflection of a poor understanding of the game.
Go ask a serious 40K player if he feels CentuBomb plays like ScreamerStar.
I'm picking, on purpose, two armies that are psy-deathstar-based so that you may be as close as possible (no point in asking whether gladius marines play like scatbike Eldar ...)
Not a clue what you said. Sorry I am not nerdish/geekish enough to understand that. Not proper English? CentuBomb and ScreamerStar is proper English. Even the autocorrect doesn't recognize it. So what is not proper English that I didn't say?
Let's see. There was movement stats. Now Everyone moves 6". Now it's less complex or diverse. Also Space Marines got a free 2" boost while other armies like Eldar and Tyranids have become slower while paying more points or no point reduction to compensate.
Now Space Marines no longer have to choose what grenades or missiles they must take. They have both now. Maybe that is different that they don't have to choose but other armies still have to choose either this or that.
Shall I go on, or is that not proper English for you, or nerdy enough?
How about not accurate enough?
Let's not even begin to open the can of worms that is you being found in other threads lecturing people about rule 1 for disagreeing with other people Ina polite and reasoned way, and yet employing a smug condescending tone (not to mention utterly hypocritical) in this reply. "Not nerdy enough?" I haven't played 40K in approaching two years and I can at least roughly understand the terms employed, so maybe it's "not well informed enough?" or "too ignorant of the subject at hand to be qualified to offer a valid opinion and should keep their own counsel?"
Go ask a serious 40K player if he feels CentuBomb plays like ScreamerStar.
I'm picking, on purpose, two armies that are psy-deathstar-based so that you may be as close as possible (no point in asking whether gladius marines play like scatbike Eldar ...)
This sounds more like the nicknames of internet cheese lists. Nothing to do with game complexity. More likely to do with a game with little balance.
If an OP cheese list exists - the game is poorly balanced. If people turn up to tournaments with either OP cheese lists, or lists designed to solely beat an OP cheese list, then why would anyone want to play it. Especially since building, modelling and painting are such time sinks. Who wants to spend all that time to have their models 'laughed at' because they're 'weak'.
A game can be as complex or simple as it likes to me. The only things I dislike are games when models I've spent hours building and painting are 'worthless' ingame. Or games that have rules spread across dozens of places. I don't mind a main rulebook and an army book, but once it goes beyond that, you've lost me as a customer.
Most of the Random tables (Warlord Traits, Psionic Powers, Chaos boons) in 40K strike me as not being so much a feeble balancing attempt so much as an attempt to keep the game fresh and unique so it doesn't stagnate with the same builds and tactics over and over. Which actually I really dislike. If most of those random options were simply better balanced/costed, more of them would see actual use among the player base, rather than being ignored, rerolled or the player desperation wracking his brain to figure out how to get use with the result in his/her current army.
I think that's partially it. I think that alot of 40k extranea -whether layers of special rules, tables or just an over-abundance of options- is a reflection of the RPG'ish bent of GW. Through all it's incarnations GW games have almost always had an almost RPG-ish level of devotion to wanting their units to have customizability, stats and special rules to narratively represent the way that unit occurs in the fluff. This has been slighly strayed from in AoS, but give it an edition or two and see what it looks like then.
Many other games companies are content to streamline units/stats/rules to generally represent the subject matter and give a faster game. For GW however, if the fluff says that a unit of Kharnate Pygmy Monkey Dills has the ability to dance on one foot while urinating and casting a transfixion spell with it's tail than gosh-darn-it they're going to find a way to over-represent that ability in the rules.
@ Azreal, no condensending ment at all. I actually felt offended when someone is telling me I don't have the correct English then to go on to speak in non English terms. I flet he was insulting me.
More rules doesn't mean more complex. 40k is full of unnecessary rules that bog the game down, without adding to the game play, every time i play we run into a rule and go "why this make no sense" they simplified movement and then added more rules to other things.
Go ask a serious 40K player if he feels CentuBomb plays like ScreamerStar.
I'm picking, on purpose, two armies that are psy-deathstar-based so that you may be as close as possible (no point in asking whether gladius marines play like scatbike Eldar ...)
This sounds more like the nicknames of internet cheese lists. Nothing to do with game complexity. More likely to do with a game with little balance.
If an OP cheese list exists - the game is poorly balanced. If people turn up to tournaments with either OP cheese lists, or lists designed to solely beat an OP cheese list, then why would anyone want to play it. Especially since building, modelling and painting are such time sinks. Who wants to spend all that time to have their models 'laughed at' because they're 'weak'.
A game can be as complex or simple as it likes to me. The only things I dislike are games when models I've spent hours building and painting are 'worthless' ingame. Or games that have rules spread across dozens of places. I don't mind a main rulebook and an army book, but once it goes beyond that, you've lost me as a customer.
The post I replied to stated that every unit in the game tended to play the same, my answer showed that even very similar types of lists didn't play the same at all.
Any and every game with some variety will have top lists, that's just how it works.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Another aspect of complexity is the addition of random elements that limit the effectiveness of tactics - increased random chance aids the inexperienced player.
GW is not alone in that regard, nor is it a recent problem for GW - random wonkiness in GW games go back to at least Rogue Trader and Realms of Chaos.
On the flip side, there are those games that eliminate random chance entirely chess is one example, the old but excellent Trillion Credit Squadron for Traveller is another - but in general I do like having some measure of random chance, I just don't like it driving the game.
Not exactly sure where the 'funny' aspects of some of the AoS warscrolls falls in regards to complexity - I think that sometimes there are things that count as 'just plain dumb'.
The Auld Grump
I actually think the random elements work both ends; they reward players able to contingency plans and make risk/reward decisions, as well as giving 'come back opportunities' to novices that really have nothing to lose.
Most of the Random tables (Warlord Traits, Psionic Powers, Chaos boons) in 40K strike me as not being so much a feeble balancing attempt so much as an attempt to keep the game fresh and unique so it doesn't stagnate with the same builds and tactics over and over. Which actually I really dislike. If most of those random options were simply better balanced/costed, more of them would see actual use among the player base, rather than being ignored, rerolled or the player desperation wracking his brain to figure out how to get use with the result in his/her current army.
On the opposite end of that is the Randumb tables (Ork weapon malfunctions, warpstorms, Helbrute insanity, mob rule, instinctual behavior) are just plain bad attempts to compensate for actual rules balance. "I win" on a 6 vs. "I lose" on a 1 involves no tactical decision, just bad consequences for either you or your opponent, and should be removed with all due haste. The game already rewards good rolls and punishes bad; throwing ever more unbalancing results at each end of the spectrum doesn't make the game any better.
I did say randomess works both ends, but largely agreed. Good points on the 'roll at the start of the game' stuff being there for 'freshness'.
However, the 'win on a 6, lose on a 1' stuff (orky weapons or animosity typically) do tend to have other considerations tied into them; you can make decisions that mitigates the 1 and maximises the 6... Both players trying to play around or exploit animosity made whfb orcs fun (or not, perspectives varied). It alters list building decisions (should I take black orcs for quell animosity, with 7/8th ed whfb beastmen: do I give my gor bunker shields for parry save, or is it not worth the 1/36 chance of losing parry when primal frenzy happens).
Admittedly the implementation of these rules often lead to strange tactics... any one else see units of 5 wolf riders spend their first turn using their infinite reform to move in and out of dangerous terrain until they lost a single member (not enough for a panic check, but also small enough to no longer need to take animosity checks -I'm sure this was a thing)?
In the case of weapons it just exaggerates the importance of target selection and exaggerates cost/benefit analysis. Find a situation where the 'win' would otherwise happen less than 1/6 and the 'loss' more than 1/6; this weapon rebalances that situation.
A bit of a long winded post, I know. I suppose in essence I am saying, while the randomness in some situations appears to remove choice from players, it often actually just reworks the decision tree from what a typical unit would do.
Good thread. My ideal is a game with low complexity and high depth. My ideal is also a game that doesn't play the same way every time I play it against the same army lists and using the same combos over and over again. Thats how I get burnt out and want out.
The only reason I've played 40k and fantasy for going on two decades is because after the first decade I quit and thought I had quit for good, but recognized that my issue was ten years of playing the same game, same builds, same tournament approach and I was heavily burnt out, so some randomness and narrative events where the B lists could shine opened the game up for me because each game was a different experience.
I started wargaming in 1989 with Battletech and historicals. I have come a long way since those days in understanding my own likes and dislikes, and any game that plays the same repeatedly will be a game I don't really get into.
I also would rather a tactical game where decisions in game mean more than list building before the game. Otherwise to me we could save ourselves a couple of hours of our lives and do something else if you've shown up with a hard counter to my army. There's no point in playing that game to me.
I don't like xwing because it is a game that heavily relies on list building and combos. I like Armada because while there are combos etc, I feel to me that there is a lot more tactical play that seems to matter in a way that I like.
I don't like WMH because every game seemed the same, the same as I don't like tournament 40k or WHFB for the same reasons that every game seemed the same.
I can stomach some complexity for the sake of a differing experience each time I play it. Ten years ago I would have balked in the face of randomness and hated it but today I prefer some random elements that I have to react to as opposed to writing the script that dictates the game and having it run in every one of my games.
auticus wrote: Good thread. My ideal is a game with low complexity and high depth. My ideal is also a game that doesn't play the same way every time I play it against the same army lists and using the same combos over and over again. Thats how I get burnt out and want out.
I think what I'm saying is that as a group, we all prefer a game to have strong depth with low complexity. That's not just your ideal, it is all of our ideals.
Complexity has diminishing returns. I mean, if we start out at Candyland, then adding some depth and choices will only make things go up.
I think what you've pointed out is that there is a little more to it than just the two elements. Some rules add complexity and also add randomness. While many of us would balk at the prospect, you make a good point- sometimes randomness gives you interesting and unique tactical situations.
By the way- this is one of the reasons I love Blood Bowl. The game has one side that is almost chess like- you sit there and plan out the perfect turn. On the other hand, it is also totally bonkers and intentionally swingy and random at times.
In my experience, the random parts of it actually create interesting and unique tactical situations that you did not plan on, as well as creating contingency plans for when things inevitably go horribly wrong. It makes you have to think your way out of the situation. In this way, the added random factor ironically also adds depth. And by the way, my Vampires are terrific, but you have to play them just right, since a few small errors with them can cost you the game.
Kingdom Death does it much the same way. You send your party off on a hunt, and they're even hunting a monster they've gone after before. You have everyone geared up, but they broke their potions on the hunt, and found that the antelope they were hunting is half eaten by a lion they now have to fight.
In both instances, the random elements also add lore- either the glimpses into the workings of the Nightmarescape physics of the plain of faces, or the wackiness of crazed fans mugging the referee. So that's double duty.
Randomness can be done right and wrong. We don't love to win or lose on luck, but we like to win or lose based on risk management.
On the other hand, if you got those things between games- the way you level up in Mordheim, Necromunda or Blood Bowl- you can end up with unique characters, and develop tactics that your faction doesn't normally use. That can be really interesting, and adds depth. Also, I can buy a new sword to take advantage of that new skill my Vampire got.
If we look at rules focused on random pick up games , they have multiple missions that favor different types of armies/styles of play.
They also have provable levels of game balance.(Lots of work involved in taking feed back from players and play testers.)
And every edition they reduce the amount of pointless complication in the rules , to arrive at the most straight forward rules possible to deliver the optimum in game tactical complexity.
If we look at 40k rules, the amount of complication and randomness in the rules has increased every edition since third edition.
Not because 40k players want poorly defined over complicated rules.But because the poor allocation of point values has been obvious to so many for so long.
That rather than work for a clean rule set that allows better point value allocation.(Which would not let them use PV as a marketing tool.)
GW plc forced randomness in spades all over the rule set, to make it impossible to be able to assign point values with any sort of meaningful accuracy or any sort of meaningful game balance.
GW plc forced randomness in spades all over the rule set, to make it impossible to be able to assign point values with any sort of meaningful accuracy or any sort of meaningful game balance.
I think GW forced randomness in spades all over the ruleset because their ivory tower design ethos is more to have fun and tell a story with their models as opposed to tight tournament play.
Every interview I've read or every Games Day talk that the designers would be discussing their direction indicated that to me. The problem is that the wargaming community of today is not the wargaming community of 1985. The wargaming community today wants an esport.
@morgoth.
I have lots of evidence from people working in GW plc at the time, from the Chairman of the board, and the people in the studio.(From interviews and written statements in the public domain.)
That show GW plc gave up on actual long term game development in favor of short term sales focus at the detriment of the games.
I have no evidence of any ones abnormal eating habits?
Focusing on selling plastic toy soldiers to children and collectors, that do not play or do not care about the rules.
Is not a good environment for actual game development focusing on addressing game play issues.
So if you actually care about playing a game and the quality of the rules you buy.You do have a conflict of interest with GW plc view of what customers should prioritize.
I think there's a danger here of conflating randomness with complexity and/or depth.
There's been a great deal of discussion about randomness in the thread. Randomness itself is indicative of neither complexity nor depth.
Random chance has much more to do with experience. The outcome of a game should be unpredictable. That's what makes it fun; we do not know what the result is going to be. Hence why some in this thread have said that a predicible game is not enjoyable.
It seems that the flip side of randomness is choice; the meaningful decisions a player can make that affect the outcome of the game. Choice, it seems, correlates with depth. The more meaningful choices a player has, the deeper the game. We want our choices to control the outcome of the game; we want our choices to have meaning in the context of the game.
Candy land, for example, has no choice. It is simply a game of random chance. No choice, no depth.
Randomness erodes choice by introducing a chaotic element outside a player's control, but it does not necessarily erode depth. Randomness can change the nature of choice by forcing the player to consider probabilities when making meaningful choices.
Random chance is an element of many, many table top games, and it it has a deep tradition in table top wargames. War is messy and unpredictable. No plan survives contact with the enemy because there are too many variables to account for. Luck, therefore, has long had an association with battle.
Random chance can serve to represent the inherent unpredictability of violent conflict, and so it often has an important place in a table top wargame, which is, to one degree or another, a simulation of violent conflict. In this way, randomness serves the gameplay experience in a table top wargame.
There is an art to balancing randomness against choice. Again, because randomness inherently erodes choice. And that's a big part of what makes a game unique, how the rules serve to balance randomness and choice. As I said before, in the end it mostly comes down to personal taste. Some players like a lot of randomness. Some don't.
But that's mostly what playing a wargame is: an exercise in managing probabilities as a means to produce a desired outcome.
If not already mentioned, it also depends on the size of the game.
For example I actually really like deep and complex rules that are from spin off games like HoR kill team, there is a lot more to do and take into account, but because you are only dealing with 400 points of models MAX it works very well. Now scale that up to 1850, no thanks.
Complex rules are fine, where the problem comes from in my opinion is when you have rules that are either so closely aligned they should just be combined into a single rule, having to deal with this rule trumps this rule which over rides that rule. Also a big issue I think any game needs to clarify is the level of authority of rule sets.
IE the base rules are in the BRB, but the codex has authority over the Brb. For example the brb says you can't assault outta deep strike, but if the army book says you can for this unit, the army book has the higher authority.
Also there needs to be a "red shirt guy" who fact checks the rules to make sure there are not a bunch of conflicts between rules.
My own game, an Old West skirmish game, relies heavily on randomness. It's actually one of the selling points (i.e. no two games should ever play the same). It would be difficult to replicate a game even if you tried. It essentially features random character creation (characters and weaponry are randomized via card decks) and even the sides played by the players are determined by the character draw. Activation cards are shuffled into a deck so there is no IGOUGO involved. Added to that is a Special Deck (which is optional and can be from 0-4 cards per turn, for each side). While optional, this is encouraged. The special decks represent accidents, good fortune, new characters arriving to the game, errant bullets, horses getting spooked etc.
This works fine for an Old West game, but would not work in an organized military game. When I host a game, people inevitably ask "Well, this guy sucks at shooting...can he give his rifle to this guy, who's better?" to which I say no. Not to be mean or spiteful, but I remind players that this is a skirmish between characters who aren't soldiers. They're not being commanded or organized/orchestrated by tacticians, etc. The Town Person has the rifle because that's what he owns. He may believe he's a better shot than the Soldier...even if he's not. They don't have the Godlike knowledge that the player does. Likewise the activation represents the chaos of a genuine gunfight. People stopping, scanning, thinking they heard a noise, spinning around to check behind them, or simply cowering.
The game's rules are simple, but the depth is pretty good. The characters mostly feature special rules or abilities on their cards. These can be combined or mixed with other characters and special cards to create unique combinations/outcomes. The challenge to either player is to read the scenario and realize they'll have to achieve it with whatever they draw. The tactical challenge comes from making the most of the mess. If we look at it in Old West terms, sure the Marshal would wish his posse consisted of sharp-shootin' gunhands...but he's got two Town Persons, a Doctor, a Soldier, and a Prostitute at his service...so he'll have to make it work. The randomness of the game itself is the challenge.
Likewise, the special deck serves an added purpose: obscuring the outcome. One thing I found I didn't like with a number of games I had played was that normally with IGOUGO and set distances/activations, you could do the math in your head and realize you weren't going to win a game two or three turns from the end. That sucks ass. It can really ruin a game. I'm sure a lot of people see it in 40K and capitulate. That might be fine for tournament games but for a friendly get together, that kind of thing sucks ass. "Well, I only move 6" per turn and I'm 21" away and have three turns left...I can't win". That's never how you want a fun game evening to end. The special deck allows characters to find a horse, activate an additional time, find a trap door to a secret tunnel, surprise the opponent by stealing one of his characters, etc. The goal is to ensure that a player is almost never out of the game.
Disclaimer: Story Time
The below picture was taken at a convention a few years ago. The scenario had involved Lawmen stopping and illegal marriage of some Outlaw characters. Early in the game the groom had been shot dead and I decided that the Outlaws could win if the Bride got off the far table edge (nearly 4' away). What happened then was a ridiculous chase. The bride was running, the Lawmen (other side of the board) charging after her. An Outlaw gave up his horse so the Bride could move faster...then the horse was shot out from under her. She made it to one edge of the table and started running - using any extra activations the Outlaws drew. They were chasing her down when they went through a small gap in the town and the Outlaws triggered a dynamite trap, injuring four or five of them (the blast in the lower left). The picture shows the very end of one turn. The bride is in the very corner, merely 3-4" from escaping. The Lawmen are wounded by coming after her --- we reshuffle the activation deck. There are ten players all waiting anxiously, two of them were 10-12 years old and were jumping up and down screaming. Very first activation card? Bride. She runs off the table, narrowly escaping the pack of lawmen.
So, randomness is not bad. If you like strategy games or Chess, maybe skip it. But if you want a laugh-out-loud good time...it has its place. As Mindworm said, a true strategy game like Chess has never played out in the real world - why should it in a game? Every engagement ever in the history of armed conflict has been both sides making the best of what they have --- and dealing with unforeseen circumstances, accidents, weather, timing, communications, wild life, etc. It's why I rarely enjoy any games which involve "balanced" forces or armies/objectives etc.
Randomness adds the unforseen which is why I like it. I also agree too much randomness is bad. Random for the sake of random is bad to me. So too is a game where the player controls everything because while those choices are obviously very meaningful, it means the game will have a short shelf-life as one can only enjoy playing the same scenarios and outcomes for so long before they grow bored.
Chess is great, but as someone else pointed out it is merely memorizing patterns trying to see who makes the first mistake.
Real war has a lot of unforseen elements, which is why I prefer some to moderate amounts of randomness in a wargame, because it makes my immersion happy.
GW plc forced randomness in spades all over the rule set, to make it impossible to be able to assign point values with any sort of meaningful accuracy or any sort of meaningful game balance.
Yes, and they eat baby seals for breakfast too.
Their Evil knows no bounds.
And people why other people harp on or crap on GW even more when people have to make comments like this. What did this person say is wrong or not true that you had to mock him?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just saw this in the "Has GW gotten better" thread.
wuestenfux wrote:We played a AoS league and I must admit that the AoS general rules are sufficient to explain the game dynamics. The depth come into being with the warscrolls.
So simple to start but as you build up your force and play more, the more complex the game gets. I find this approach so much better than just having a huge tomb of a book and start reading it from the beginning.
Yes mistakes have been made, yes the Old World should have never been destroyed so that aside, I find this is a great way to add depth or complexity into a game. Slowly and build up as you start instead of drop everything on you right away.
Remember that Rogue Trader is essentaially an RPG adapted to a tabletop skirmish setting. Like Elbows' game, the rules have you roll your charachters up randomly before the game! At least a bit of this ethos carries through even today in GW games.
I like Randomness, but I prefer it to be done cleverly so that it mimics the effect of a game master.
I'm not a big RPG'er, but I love it when a wargames that has a good GM. The players are constantly on their toes and situations arrise that mere listbuilding could not have forseen. We've been playing "Tales of Blades and Heroes" which is sort of an RPG/Skirmish cross-breed. We're playing it cooperateively with each player controlling two chatracters. Having a GM revealing charachters, traps, enemies, etc makes for a great narrative experience
Getting back to the conversation at hand, Tales of Blades and heroes is very light on complexity and the ruleset itself is only moderatly deep. The depth of the game comes via the GM and his creativity. As mentioned before, I prefer that the games rules be light on complexity and often times I'd rather that they be a bit shallow if that means faster play. I'd prefer complexity to come from the scenario if possible.
GW plc forced randomness in spades all over the rule set, to make it impossible to be able to assign point values with any sort of meaningful accuracy or any sort of meaningful game balance.
Yes, and they eat baby seals for breakfast too.
Their Evil knows no bounds.
And people why other people harp on or crap on GW even more when people have to make comments like this. What did this person say is wrong or not true that you had to mock him?
He is stating that GW purposefully fethed up all accuracy and game balance in 40K.
Everyone has their own level of complexity where they draw the line and say "Too much!" or "Too Little."
Case in point: simple games bore me. But then, I cut my wargaming teeth on Star Fleet Battles, so I may not have an upper limit to the complexity I can enjoy.
Times and tastes in games and complexity levels change over the years, too. Never forget that in many cases, with a behemoth company like GW, the game has to offer something to as broad a range of players as possible to generate sales. Designing a set of rules that makes everyone happy from casuals to tournament players to fluff bunnies seems nigh on impossible with 40K.
Steve Jackson Games is going through this with a new edition of Car Wars right now. Car Wars was pretty popular in the 80s, but the new version upcoming is going to ditch a lot of things other than the basics of the setting - cars blowing each other apart. Why? The rules were a bloated mess of minutia after a bunch of expansions, and except for nostalgia value, that kind of rules heavy approach would be DOA in the marketplace today. The crowd of people willing to wade through all that to sit around taking one hour plus to simulate 1 second of game time is a lot tinier today than it was in the 80s. I suspect very much the same is true for Star Fleet Battles.
Elbows wrote: The picture shows the very end of one turn. The bride is in the very corner, merely 3-4" from escaping. The Lawmen are wounded by coming after her --- we reshuffle the activation deck. There are ten players all waiting anxiously, two of them were 10-12 years old and were jumping up and down screaming. Very first activation card? Bride. She runs off the table, narrowly escaping the pack of lawmen.
Honestly, this is an example of bad randomness. They key event of the game came down to a completely random draw, rather than any player decisions. Consider an alternative where each side had to make a blind bid for the ability to move first (paying, say, movement distance vs. activation speed), and the bride's player had to carefully weigh how much they could afford to bid for that first activation without taking on too much risk of not being able to escape in a single activation. Now you still have the same moment of anticipation before the bids are revealed, but the outcome is 100% in the hands of the players. I suspect the "success" of the game had less to do with good game design and more to do with the fact that you had an audience of young children.
(And then of course there's the fact that you changed the victory conditions mid-game to make things more "exciting", taking away the player decisions that should have ended in a victory for the lawmen once the wedding was stopped by the groom's death.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: I think GW forced randomness in spades all over the ruleset because their ivory tower design ethos is more to have fun and tell a story with their models as opposed to tight tournament play.
I don't know about AoS since I refuse to play that garbage, but 40k is NOT a good narrative game. The excessive randomness and poor balance that make it a bad competitive game also seriously hurt its value as a narrative game. For example, if I'm telling a story about an ongoing campaign with my army I shouldn't have my main HQ character completely forget his warlord trait from the previous game and discover a random new talent for each battle. Mission objectives should be fixed and determined by the story, not drawn randomly from a deck every turn. Etc.
IMO the real reason for randomness in GW's games, aside from the sheer incompetence of their rules authors, is to appeal to a younger audience. GW wants the sales from the 10-15 year olds begging their parents for a box of space marines, and those people, as a rule, suck at complex strategy games. In a balanced game with a lot of strategic depth and little randomness they're going to get wiped off the table effortlessly by older and more experienced players that are thinking multiple levels ahead. In an unbalanced game with lots of randomness they at least have the chance to get lucky with the dice and win by getting better warlord traits/better objectives/etc. They get more chances to experience the thrill of success, even if only in the very superficial form of rolling well on the random table. And when they lose they can blame the dice instead of having to face the fact that they suck at the game. So they keep begging their parents for more boxes of space marines instead of getting discouraged about how hard the game is.
@morgoth.
When the Chairman of GW plc, and the lead game developer of 40k at GW plc , both believe that their core demographic are children/collectors who buy the 'best toy soldiers in the world', and do not care about rules that much, even if they play the game.
Why should they care about game play issues?All they need to do is keep making the best toy soldiers in the world and selling them as the highest price they can get away with.
Inspiring rules that improve sales,( special rules,) are favored over rules writing that improves clarity , brevity and elegance of the rule set.
This attitude drove away a lot of GW staff, who have moved to and started up other companies.(Who realize quality rules add value to the minatures. And this is much more in line with players expectations.That is why they are growing their market share while GW plc is loosing theirs. )
Making up stories ,and random cool sounding rules just for fun.Is well within the capability of every player I have known. Players are very capable of providing their own narrative to games.(They did it before GW was founded.)
Developing well defined intuitive rule sets that deliver the expected game play with the minimum fuss and provable levels of balance is very difficult.
It even takes professional game developers a few yeas to get it as good as it can be .(usually 5 to 8 years for the fine tuned 'finished' 3rd edition.)
As this is very difficult , it is the main reason players buy rule sets, to provide the difficult to do, well defined instructions for a relatively complex game play experience.
However, well defined intuitive rule sets ,with enough provable levels of balance to support random pick up games , are easy to add fun narrative and fun rules to.
In fact they are much easier to add to, than over complicated rules with limited functionality like 40k has.
Rules written with clarity brevity and elegance are a benefit to ALL players.
Poorly defined , over complicated, counter intuitive rules are not helping any players. (Sure if you work you a"£$ off 'forging the narrative' you can have fun if you really put the effort in.)
Analogy alert. if War game rules were tool boxes..
40k rules are like a tool box with 100 metric wrenches.(4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,,14,15,16,17,18,19,etc)
Wow its heavy,but it can only undo or tighten up metric hexagonal headed fixings .
Other games rules use 4 adjustable wrenches to do the same job , (and can undo odd sized imperial stuff to.)
And they have a selections of hammers , mallets, saws, screwdrivers, in a much smaller tool box, that weighs half as much.
War gamers prefer the lighter multifunctionsl tool boxes, that allows them to do far more.
40k players say 'but my tool box is bigger and heavier ,so its got to be better than those other ones.'
And GW are happy to keep selling them bigger tool boxes and more super shiney wrenches....
Elbows wrote: The picture shows the very end of one turn. The bride is in the very corner, merely 3-4" from escaping. The Lawmen are wounded by coming after her --- we reshuffle the activation deck. There are ten players all waiting anxiously, two of them were 10-12 years old and were jumping up and down screaming. Very first activation card? Bride. She runs off the table, narrowly escaping the pack of lawmen.
Honestly, this is an example of bad randomness.
I'd describe it as bad randomness for a wargame but good randomness for a board game you don't intend to play frequently.
It's the sort of randomness that'll get a laugh the first time something like that happens, maybe even the 2nd or 3rd time, but after a while it gets old. After I've had my battle plan completely destroyed by bad luck a few times I'm all about reducing randomness Especially if it's a short game, randomness isn't as bad if each game only takes 20-30 minutes to play because you'll play a bunch of games in an afternoon and it'll tend to balance out.
Pretty much any game I'm going to go to the effort of painting the miniatures to play and a game takes more than an hour or so to play, I like randomness to be a periphery, not the main event. If it's just a board game I'm going to pull off the shelf like monopoly, sure, randomness is fine.
Well, I prefer low complexity of rules like in chess or AoS.
The complexity of the the game could be much higher. In Chess there is almost no limit considering the branching tree and it's pruning. Also AoS has a deeper game complexity due to the war scrolls.
Lanrak wrote: @morgoth. When the Chairman of GW plc, and the lead game developer of 40k at GW plc , both believe that their core demographic are children/collectors who buy the 'best toy soldiers in the world', and do not care about rules that much, even if they play the game.
Dude, you are stating that GW purposefully fethed up all balance and possibility of balance in 40K, which is obviously wrong (it's never been as balanced) and really expecting GW to shoot themselves in the foot, on purpose and without any reason.
They have made mistakes, but blaming them of torpedo-ing 40K to prevent any possibility of balance is just unrealistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lanrak wrote: I prefer the lighter multifunctionsl tool boxes, that allows me to do far more.
MindwormGames wrote: I think there's a danger here of conflating randomness with complexity and/or depth.
There's been a great deal of discussion about randomness in the thread. Randomness itself is indicative of neither complexity nor depth.
Random chance has much more to do with experience. The outcome of a game should be unpredictable. That's what makes it fun; we do not know what the result is going to be. Hence why some in this thread have said that a predicible game is not enjoyable.
You are right- randomness can add to both complexity and depth, and it can also reduce depth (I'm not sure if it can be used to reduce complexity, but it doesn't necessarily add much).
Elbows wrote: The picture shows the very end of one turn. The bride is in the very corner, merely 3-4" from escaping. The Lawmen are wounded by coming after her --- we reshuffle the activation deck. There are ten players all waiting anxiously, two of them were 10-12 years old and were jumping up and down screaming. Very first activation card? Bride. She runs off the table, narrowly escaping the pack of lawmen.
Honestly, this is an example of bad randomness.
I'd describe it as bad randomness for a wargame but good randomness for a board game you don't intend to play frequently.
It's the sort of randomness that'll get a laugh the first time something like that happens, maybe even the 2nd or 3rd time, but after a while it gets old. After I've had my battle plan completely destroyed by bad luck a few times I'm all about reducing randomness Especially if it's a short game, randomness isn't as bad if each game only takes 20-30 minutes to play because you'll play a bunch of games in an afternoon and it'll tend to balance out.
Pretty much any game I'm going to go to the effort of painting the miniatures to play and a game takes more than an hour or so to play, I like randomness to be a periphery, not the main event. If it's just a board game I'm going to pull off the shelf like monopoly, sure, randomness is fine.
See, I'm the opposite. I enjoy games like Dragon Rampant (where, with a bad roll...you don't even activate anything on your turn), Fireball Forward (where you draw cards to determine activations), co-op games where you're encountering random events/enemies, and while I don't play Bolt Action, I like the "drawing activations" from a bag kind of thing. I like the Battlegroup games where you're drawing break numbers from a bag when you lose a unit (meaning you suffer a serious knock to your army, or you actually gain a lucky chit). I think the difference here is that I don't care about winning - particularly in skirmish games (even moreso in ones with a campaign which builds an evolving story). Sure I like to win, but some of the very best games I've ever played, I've lost - sometimes terribly so.
Of course, running my Old West game, it's simply not a game unless someone says 'Screw it...I'm a cowboy" and walks across the street shooting double sixguns. It's almost never the smartest thing to do - but it is damn cool. For me, a game (notably a skirmish game) is more about making a Hollywood-esque film come to life on a table, not clinically and mathematically eliminating someone from the table. I'm not playing poker for money - I'm there to have a good time. When I'm working on a new game, I might create a mechanic which is accurate, simple, and logical...the next question is "is it fun?".
Back to the topic at hand, I've played numerous games which are mechanically sound. Balanced, logical, well written...and the most boring thing I've spent time doing. As someone said earlier, complexity is useless if it doesn't add a benefit to the game. Added rules for rules sake, or wishing to address ever facet of real life combat doesn't always yield a "good game" to a lot of the target audience. That's where occasionally in a game you'll stumble upon a genius mechanic. One which is fun, accurate, simple, and perhaps kills two birds with one stone. Those are genuinely cool to encounter. When you're playing a game and think "Damn, that's a great way to address that situation...".
Elbows wrote: I think the difference here is that I don't care about winning - particularly in skirmish games (even moreso in ones with a campaign which builds an evolving story). Sure I like to win, but some of the very best games I've ever played, I've lost - sometimes terribly so.
No, the difference is I care if I have an input as to whether I win or lose. I don't care if I lose, I just hate winning or losing because of a random event.
I don't mind in the context of board games, but in the context of a wargame, I just find it gets old fast if I'm either winning or losing because of random events. It's something that's fun for a short time at best.
If the outcome of the game is totally out of my hands, I dunno, I think I'd rather read a book or something
For me, a game (notably a skirmish game) is more about making a Hollywood-esque film come to life on a table, not clinically and mathematically eliminating someone from the table. I'm not playing poker for money - I'm there to have a good time. When I'm working on a new game, I might create a mechanic which is accurate, simple, and logical...the next question is "is it fun?".
Fun and random/silly aren't synonymous, that might be appropriate for you, it's not for everyone. Even something that might be "funny" might not necessarily make for a "fun" game mechanic.
There has to be a balance with randomness. A random event where you auto-lose is not fun for most people, but on the flip side a core element of wargames is that randomness requires you to somewhat think on your toes. Once the game is so random that you're no longer thinking on your toes but rather just bound to random events it's no longer a game, it's a random story telling event with little toy soldiers going pew pew pew at each other
And as I said previously, you get away with more randomness in games where people aren't invested. 40k is a game where players tend to be heavily invested (in money buying the models, in time painting them, in the time it takes to play a game) so it gets more flak for being random than a game like, say, Blood Bowl, where a few bad rolls can totally feth up a game as well.
Right, and I don't disagree with you - more that Peregrine and yourself seem to be stating it as an arbitrary fact that X is not good, where Y is --- rather than an opinion on said rules.
@morgoth.
You posted..
''Dude, you are stating that GW purposefully fethed up all balance and possibility of balance in 40K, which is obviously wrong (it's never been as balanced) and really expecting GW to shoot themselves in the foot, on purpose and without any reason.
They have made mistakes, but blaming them of torpedo-ing 40K to prevent any possibility of balance is just unrealistic.''
Your frame of reference is obviously very different to mine.What editions of 40k have you played?What other game have you played?
1)40k has never been that balanced.(Compared to other rule sets.)
2)All the editions from 3rd edition 40k on wards have managed to do is add more layers of complication, without fixing any core game play issues.
EG
The lack of player interaction with the WHFB game turn mechanic.
The imbalance between assault and shooting.
3)The decision was made to ignore game play issues and game balance , and focus on short term sales of new releases.
Since then GW plc have lost over half the sales volumes they had, and new companies that do take rules development seriously are growing their market share.
So if I am 'obviously wrong' please find a statement from GW ,(Chairman/C.E.O or game developers,) that clearly stated GW put clearly defined game play and professional level of rules writing at the top of their priority list for 40k game development.
Elbows wrote: The picture shows the very end of one turn. The bride is in the very corner, merely 3-4" from escaping. The Lawmen are wounded by coming after her --- we reshuffle the activation deck. There are ten players all waiting anxiously, two of them were 10-12 years old and were jumping up and down screaming. Very first activation card? Bride. She runs off the table, narrowly escaping the pack of lawmen.
Honestly, this is an example of bad randomness. They key event of the game came down to a completely random draw, rather than any player decisions. Consider an alternative where each side had to make a blind bid for the ability to move first (paying, say, movement distance vs. activation speed), and the bride's player had to carefully weigh how much they could afford to bid for that first activation without taking on too much risk of not being able to escape in a single activation. Now you still have the same moment of anticipation before the bids are revealed, but the outcome is 100% in the hands of the players. I suspect the "success" of the game had less to do with good game design and more to do with the fact that you had an audience of young children..
I think this - the issue of player control- is the crux of the difference between what you are looking for in a game and what the players of the game were looking for. And I'd reject the thinly veiled insult implying that the participation of children was the reason for the "success". I know alot of gamers who enjoy games where the outcome of the game is in partly out of their hands. These type of gamers tend to enjoy RPG'ish and narrative elements in gaming. They are fine with a game where even the best laid plans can completely fall apart and no matter how hard you chase her, sometimes the bride escapes. Clearly the gamers were enjoying the chase and whether or not the bride was captured was secondary to the excitement of the chase.
totalfailure wrote: Times and tastes in games and complexity levels change over the years, too. Never forget that in many cases, with a behemoth company like GW, the game has to offer something to as broad a range of players as possible to generate sales. Designing a set of rules that makes everyone happy from casuals to tournament players to fluff bunnies seems nigh on impossible with 40K.
Steve Jackson Games is going through this with a new edition of Car Wars right now. Car Wars was pretty popular in the 80s, but the new version upcoming is going to ditch a lot of things other than the basics of the setting - cars blowing each other apart. Why? The rules were a bloated mess of minutia after a bunch of expansions, and except for nostalgia value, that kind of rules heavy approach would be DOA in the marketplace today. The crowd of people willing to wade through all that to sit around taking one hour plus to simulate 1 second of game time is a lot tinier today than it was in the 80s. I suspect very much the same is true for Star Fleet Battles.
No argument there. Now it's all "Federation Commander", which is SFB stripped down so simple it's boring... in my opinion, anyway.
MindwormGames wrote: I think there's a danger here of conflating randomness with complexity and/or depth.
There's been a great deal of discussion about randomness in the thread. Randomness itself is indicative of neither complexity nor depth.
Random chance has much more to do with experience. The outcome of a game should be unpredictable. That's what makes it fun; we do not know what the result is going to be. Hence why some in this thread have said that a predicible game is not enjoyable.
You are right- randomness can add to both complexity and depth, and it can also reduce depth (I'm not sure if it can be used to reduce complexity, but it doesn't necessarily add much).
Randomness in itself adds uncertainty which in turn makes choices harder but it doesn't add/reduce complexity or depth (that's a more fundamental function of how you design a game). Of course if you just arbitrary add randomness all over the place then you are making the game more complicated (but not increasing complexity).
Uhm guys if you keep using adjustable wrenches, your product will not be really good. You never EVER use adjustable wrenches to make or take anything apart. You will just end up stripping the nut/bolt and round the head. Always use the proper wrench.
That is like saying you are using regular scissors to cut of your minis of the sprue. That is like using a painters brush that you use for walls to paint your minis. They are cheaper and take up half the space since you don't need so much.
Just because you have less and cheaper doesn't mean it's better. Use the proper tools for the proper job. Not what is cheaper or takes up less space. In other words, play the game for what you want it to do.
Pick you favorite army , take a couple of hours to write some fun fluffy rules for it.Including some missions, with special objectives and terrain.
The only qualifying criteria for acceptance is you must find them fun.
Then , pick you favorite army, and write rules for them to arrive at engaging random pick up games with all the other armies.
See how long this takes and how much harder it is to do...
'Fun rules' take no time at all to write or validate, compared to the instructions to play a game written with clarity brevity and elegance.
Everyone is capable of the former, very few are capable of the latter.
So most people expect when they buy a rule set, it is the clearly defined instruction on how to play the game .
So rules that deliver a specific type of expected game play are good rules.
If players are expecting chess and they get snakes and ladders , the players are not going to be happy.
If players are expecting snakes and ladders and they get chess they are not going to be happy.
Therefore randomness that detracts from the intended game play is bad.
Pick you favorite army , take a couple of hours to write some fun fluffy rules for it.Including some missions, with special objectives and terrain.
The only qualifying criteria for acceptance is you must find them fun.
Then , pick you favorite army, and write rules for them to arrive at engaging random pick up games with all the other armies.
See how long this takes and how much harder it is to do...
'Fun rules' take no time at all to write or validate, compared to the instructions to play a game written with clarity brevity and elegance.
Everyone is capable of the former, very few are capable of the latter.
So most people expect when they buy a rule set, it is the clearly defined instruction on how to play the game .
So rules that deliver a specific type of expected game play are good rules.
If players are expecting chess and they get snakes and ladders , the players are not going to be happy.
If players are expecting snakes and ladders and they get chess they are not going to be happy.
Therefore randomness that detracts from the intended game play is bad.
Exactly people expect a wargame, and they get dungeons and dragons in space, with guns.
Elbows wrote: Of course, running my Old West game, it's simply not a game unless someone says 'Screw it...I'm a cowboy" and walks across the street shooting double sixguns. It's almost never the smartest thing to do - but it is damn cool. For me, a game (notably a skirmish game) is more about making a Hollywood-esque film come to life on a table, not clinically and mathematically eliminating someone from the table. I'm not playing poker for money - I'm there to have a good time. When I'm working on a new game, I might create a mechanic which is accurate, simple, and logical...the next question is "is it fun?".
This is a situation where you can have your cake and eat it too.
You can have a game with nice, tight rules that still encourages players to say 'Screw it...I'm a cowboy'. It's simply a matter of making the fun/cool thing also something that makes sense to do in the context of the game rules.
If you want people to walk out into the middle of the street shooting double six-guns, it has to be a desirable choice. It can involve risk, sure, but it should also come with a benefit that could potentially outweigh the risk, thereby leaving it up to the player to manage those risks.
If there's no benefit to doing it other than 'it's for the lols', you're essentially asking people to not play the game.
If you want a narrative game, the rules should support the narrative. If you want a Hollywood-esque game, the rules should support that gameplay experience. Supporting those types of experiences does not inherently necessitate obviating player choice.
A) Sit and do nothing.
B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability)
C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill
D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill
D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.
I guess I'm a bit weird when I say 'it depends'. There is a time and a place for both the complex, and random.
If someone was to ask me my three favourite games, I would answer, honestly with the following:
Infinity. In my mind, i see it as probably the most technically brilliant game out there. A handful of models, hyper detailed rules, the fact that it is always your turn. There's are a million things going on at the same time, and loads od things to keep track of. I find it a very intense, engaging and enthralling game.
Warmachine. In my mind, I see it as my 'go to' game for ease of play. Huge variety, solid rules, solod balance and a fantastic 'organised play' scene making it very easy to just be able to turn up and get on with it (and yes, to those that are more familiar with seeing me posting my support in favour of diy gaming and narratiVe gaming, I will remind you I also enjoy pick up games, of which WMH is one of the best.) again, WMH has a combo/synergy based gameplay, with a million things going on and loads of things to keep track of. I also find it a very intensely, engaging and enthralling game, for many of the same reasons that's I enjoy infinity.
My third game? Lord of the rings strategy battle game. Completely at the other end of the spectrum. And i genuinely love it for being different to the other gsmes. Simple, straight forward and intuitive, elegant rules. With a pile of random put in. No, seriously. When two models are fighting each other, who wins isn't determined with stats or anything - it's determined with a die roll. Just an ordinary roll off - whoever wins the roll off wins the fight and rolls for damage. But it works.
Here's the thing. Random doesn't necessarily come at the cost of complex rules or depth. And choice isn't always necessary for a good game. Often the best games I've had have been based on the premise not on having the units I wanted, but rather doing the best I could with what I had available to hand. Choice has its own hurdles and consequences, not all of which are positive ones. Random, when it's done right, represents a chaotic element outside of your control. Like a game of football, you can be as skilled as you want, but no one will ever be a hundred per cent accurate, or a hundred percent able to control the flow. Oftentimes football comes down to 'managing chaotic elements'. Lord of the rings? Sure,I can move my dudes, and position them. When it comes to fighting, it's completely out of my hands, just as war is often chaotic, and the game becomes less about processing stats, or even manipulating stats in my favour and instead boils down To managing chaotic elements out of my control. It can make games very interesting. Having an unpredictable 'hand of God' element in a game that is out of your control does not make it a bad game. But you do need to change your perspectives to be able to appreciate and enjoy its merits.
A) Sit and do nothing. B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability) C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill
D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.
But that's not really the point, is it?
The salient point is why players are making that choice. Are players making that choice despite the fact that it is an objectively 'bad' choice, or are they making that choice because it is an equally or situationally effective choice?
You have self-described it as a 'silly' choice, which suggests that you, the game designer, feel that it is an objectively 'bad' choice to make. And yet you want players to make that choice, because it serves the interest of the gameplay experience. That's the disconnect.
My point is that you don't have to choose between gameplay experience and rules. Game rules can, and ideally should, serve the desired gameplay experience. You can have a game wherein optimal gameplay also serves the interests of the story.
Indeed, doing so means that both players focused on 'winning' the game and players focused on the 'story' of the game will be making effective choices. In other words, you shouldn't have to play 'badly' to have fun, nor should playing 'well' mean that you can't have fun.
Edit: Introducing a lot of random elements is a great way to erode player choice, it can serve to 'level the playing field' in a game, preventing players who are inclined to make 'optimal' choices from dominating the game. It can, in this way, make a game seem less 'serious' or more accessible to a casual audience. The tradeoff is in depth of gameplay. At some point you wind up watching the game 'happen' versus using meaningful choices to control the outcome.
Again, as I said earlier, randomness inherently erodes choice. And choice is why we are playing games in the first place.
MindwormGames wrote: Indeed, doing so means that both players focused on 'winning' the game and players focused on the 'story' of the game will be making effective choices. In other words, you shouldn't have to play 'badly' to have fun, nor should playing 'well' mean that you can't have fun.
I agree.
If you have silly/risky options, I think there should be circumstances where that's actually the smart thing to do as well. Blood bowl's turnover and turn limit system kind of does that. The turnover system makes you try and play safe, but the 2 half turn limit system means if you're coming close to either turn 8 or turn 16 your risk to reward ratio shifts, so what was stupid to do in turn 2 or turn 10 becomes the most logical thing to do in turn 7 or turn 15 (and it might come off brilliantly or you might just fall flat on your face, but it was still the best option at that time and maybe not the best option at a different time).
A) Sit and do nothing.
B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability)
C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill
D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill
D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.
But that's not really the point, is it?
.
Mindworm, I appreciate the subtly condescending tone in your post. I encourage you to continue on with your own game design philosophies and opinions. To answer your first point, yes, it is the point. The point of my game is to have a laugh-out-loud good time rolling dice with friends. It delivers that, and that's the extent of my desire. As long as my table full of players have a good time - mission accomplished. So far, so good. I'll continue to let my players make their choice, good or bad, for whatever reason they wish. Believe it or not there is a beautiful middle ground between "watching the game happen" and making choices. You can do both.
A) Sit and do nothing.
B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability)
C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill
D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill
D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.
But that's not really the point, is it?
The salient point is why players are making that choice. Are players making that choice despite the fact that it is an objectively 'bad' choice, or are they making that choice because it is an equally or situationally effective choice?
You have self-described it as a 'silly' choice, which suggests that you, the game designer, feel that it is an objectively 'bad' choice to make. And yet you want players to make that choice, because it serves the interest of the gameplay experience. That's the disconnect.
My point is that you don't have to choose between gameplay experience and rules. Game rules can, and ideally should, serve the desired gameplay experience. You can have a game wherein optimal gameplay also serves the interests of the story.
Indeed, doing so means that both players focused on 'winning' the game and players focused on the 'story' of the game will be making effective choices. In other words, you shouldn't have to play 'badly' to have fun, nor should playing 'well' mean that you can't have fun.
Edit: Introducing a lot of random elements is a great way to erode player choice, it can serve to 'level the playing field' in a game, preventing players who are inclined to make 'optimal' choices from dominating the game. It can, in this way, make a game seem less 'serious' or more accessible to a casual audience. The tradeoff is in depth of gameplay. At some point you wind up watching the game 'happen' versus using meaningful choices to control the outcome.
Again, as I said earlier, randomness inherently erodes choice. And choice is why we are playing games in the first place.
Is choice really why we play? I think it may be secondary, tertiary or even further down the piriority list for many gamers.
Nothing in the description of Elbow's game suggested to me that his game requiresplaying badly to have fun or that playing 'well' mean(s) that you can't have fun. Rather simply that there is a choice that is objectively the least likely to succeed and statistically least effective choice while at the same time if it succeeds it has the biggest payoff.
More to the point, I don't think you should necessarily try to measure the in-game validity of a choice merely based on it's in-game probability or success. As demonstrated based on the continued success of casino's around the world people don't all game logically (some would say they rarely game logically). Much of gaming is taking the gamble (even when it isn't the wisest choice) to try for the big payoff. Gaming (wargaming especially) allows us to vicariously take chances that we never would in real life. I would suggest that in wargaming - where there is likely no money at risk- is perhaps an even better meliu for taking the risky/stupid/fanciful choice hoping for the payoff and yet enjoying the laughing at the chaos if/when the attempt fails.
Further, there's also the setting to consider which is not some hyper-competitive tournament or cerebral matching of wits over a chessboard. Rather, this is a convention game with 10 folks around a table playing out a "Spagetti Western" a genre where the fanciful, exagerated and larger-than-life is celebrated along with the trajedy, failure, foolishness and loss .
Lastly, I've seen the same tendancies in the "Mech Attack" (Think Battletech with 1/10th the rules, playing in 1/4 the time) participation games that I've run at conventions. If it means being able to unload alot of firepower on an enemy unit, participants will frequently choose to run and fire all their weapons even if that means risking the dangers of oveheating and/or leaving themselves open to an easy counterattack.
A) Sit and do nothing. B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability) C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill
D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.
But that's not really the point, is it?
.
Mindworm, I appreciate the subtly condescending tone in your post. I encourage you to continue on with your own game design philosophies and opinions. To answer your first point, yes, it is the point. The point of my game is to have a laugh-out-loud good time rolling dice with friends. It delivers that, and that's the extent of my desire. As long as my table full of players have a good time - mission accomplished. So far, so good. I'll continue to let my players make their choice, good or bad, for whatever reason they wish. Believe it or not there is a beautiful middle ground between "watching the game happen" and making choices. You can do both.
Whoa there, pard. I'm sorry if I caused offense.
We're talking game design philosophies here. I'm not trying to crap on your game.
I thought you wanted to use your game system as a specific example to illustrate what we have been discussing. But I didn't even want to get into the nitty-gritty details of how your game works, hence, 'that's not the point'.
In the abstract, it seemed to me that your viewpoint was that it is desirable for players to make sub-optimal gameplay decisions because it serves the 'story' of the game, or the gameplay experience.
That's an interesting viewpoint from a game-design perspective, and well worth discussing. Not because I think you are wrong or that your game sucks. Rather, it presents an interesting challenge: how do you motivate the players of a game to make sub-optimal gameplay choices?
My personal view is that if you make the optimal gameplay choices serve the interests of the 'story', you don't have to find a way to motivate players to make sub-optimal choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eilif wrote: Is choice really why we play? I think it may be secondary, tertiary or even further down the piriority list for many gamers.
I think choice is absolutely why we play games. That's what makes a game different from watching a movie or reading a book.
At its core, your choices, and more importantly the other players' choices, are what table top gaming is all about.
You can paint miniatures without playing a game. You can build terrain without playing a game.
To some people, the game itself might merely be an excuse to engage in those satisfying hobby activities, but there's a reason we choose to play games with other human beings.
I get your point though, and I think it's more than fair to say that outcome isn't always terribly high on people's reasons for playing a table top game. And choice correlates with outcome.
At the same time, there's a reason we play Candyland with our kids. The game has no choices, but it teaches the process of gameplay. It teaches you about how to wait your turn, how to roll dice, how to follow both the rules of the game and the rules of social interaction surrounding the game. But we graduate from a choiceless game like Candyland to games that allow the choices of players to impact the outcome of the game.
And let's face it, none of us are going down to the FLGS to play Candyland this weekend . Whether or not we want to win, I think it's still fair to say that we want to make choices. We want to have control.
How much control do we want, and at what cost in terms of rules complexity, well, that's what this thread is about, isn't it?
HI folks.
As I stated earlier the level of complexity in game play is dependent on the target audience.
As this is decided by personal opinion /tastes, it is important to make it clear exactly what the intent of the game play is.
Firefly ''A challenging game of WWII land warfare in 300th scale.'
Is targeting completely different target audience to ..
Pass the Pigs' Fun for all the family ages 5 and over.'
Completely abstract games like Chess, Snakes and Ladders,etc.Need to have straight forward rules that are brief and easy to understand, as the player shave no real world reference to use as a guide.
War games are simple simulations of real war fare types.
So when players play X-wing they are referencing the accepted concepts of 'WWII air combat '' dog fighting'' ' as portrayed in the Star Wars films for space fighter craft.
And the generally accepted way physics work, eg the faster something goes the wider the turning arc,The further away the target is the harder it is to hit etc.
As the game is based on simple simulation, it is intuitive , so needs very little in the way of complicated explanation to justify the way the rules deliver the game play.
This is true of all the good games I can think of. (Blood Bowl is not a classic war game , but uses real world American Football as a solid reference for the game play. )
To clarify simple simulation, abstracts to simplify the resolution to speed up game play , but does not abstract the outcome.
EG The ammunition type, length of barrel, turret lay out, skill of the gunner / commander , wind conditions, etc can all be simplified to a basic dice roll to determine if the shot hits.Eg basic chance to hit is X+.
This is simple simulation as it abstracts the resolution for ease of play.
Completely removing important factors that players expect to be taken into account.(This varies from game to game.)
Abstract the results and leads to counter intuitive game play.(WTF moments.) And this generally needs lots more rules to try to explain/justify why the game play is the way it is .
After you have decided on the level of complexity in the game play.
Then you have to write rules that deliver the game play in the most intuitive well defined way.
Clarity , brevity, and intuitive, are the corner stones of great game rules.
Over complicated, poorly explained and counter intuitive rules writing , is not good for any one.
So the game play complexity depends on the target audience.
Complication in the rules should ALWAYS be kept to a minimum.
Fun silly rules can be made up by anyone, and added at any point to any rule set.
Narrative can be added to the game play by anyone that wants to narrate the interaction in the game.
@auticus.
Wow you are really on the defensive here.
Loki posted.
''Exactly people expect a wargame, and they get dungeons and dragons in space, with guns.''
I took this as an example of some one miss selling a games game play. Like Selling Chess to people who want Snakes and Ladders.
I assumed that as Dungeons and Dragons game play is rooted in 'sword and sorcery ' reference, adding lots of ranged weapons , and changing the setting from 'ancient fantasy world', to 'sci fi outer space', would result in confused players.
Why did you post..
''Some people play aos / whfb and 40k because they want dungeons and dragons in space, with guns.''?
A.O.S and WHFB are not set in space and do not have an abundance of guns.Why assume they need defending?From a post that did not include them in any way?
And only you thought of Loki was referring to GW games in particular.
I could see some people understanding 40k has no clear game play definition, and therefore ''dungeons and dragons in space with guns '' may be applied to describe its game play by some.(And not by others.)
Again, as I said earlier, randomness inherently erodes choice. And choice is why we are playing games in the first place.
Full player choice is indeed why *some* people play games.
People like myself play games for a mixture of some choice and for narrative / storytelling purposes and immersion.
For me, full player choice is bad simply because it is not immersive and does not reflect any reality I know about, where people can cherry pick the best of the best and dictate a battle without worrying about unforseen events happening.
I don't personally enjoy those type of games. I actively avoid them, because they are not fulfilling what I want out of a game.
I think thats the important thing to note, that there is a wide range of acceptable weight on choice.
MindwormGames wrote:[
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eilif wrote: Is choice really why we play? I think it may be secondary, tertiary or even further down the piriority list for many gamers.
I think choice is absolutely why we play games. That's what makes a game different from watching a movie or reading a book.
At its core, your choices, and more importantly the other players' choices, are what table top gaming is all about.
You can paint miniatures without playing a game. You can build terrain without playing a game.
To some people, the game itself might merely be an excuse to engage in those satisfying hobby activities, but there's a reason we choose to play games with other human beings.
I get your point though, and I think it's more than fair to say that outcome isn't always terribly high on people's reasons for playing a table top game. And choice correlates with outcome.
How much control do we want,and at what cost in terms of rules complexity, well, that's what this thread is about, isn't it?
I think that last point may bet key. It's the degree of choice and in what meilu the choices take place. Also, here's something for thought. You can have alot of choice in a game with much randomness and you can have very little choice in a game with near full player control.
Personally, "choice" has very little priority in my gaming. I don't necessarily have the exact phrase, but perhaps it might be said that I'm looking for emersion and experience.
auticus wrote:
Again, as I said earlier, randomness inherently erodes choice. And choice is why we are playing games in the first place.
Full player choice is indeed why *some* people play games.
People like myself play games for a mixture of some choice and for narrative / storytelling purposes and immersion.
For me, full player choice is bad simply because it is not immersive and does not reflect any reality I know about, where people can cherry pick the best of the best and dictate a battle without worrying about unforseen events happening.
I don't personally enjoy those type of games. I actively avoid them, because they are not fulfilling what I want out of a game.
I think thats the important thing to note, that there is a wide range of acceptable weight on choice.
This sums up fairly well what I'm trying to get at. I also share the opinion that "full player choice" can be -for me- detrimental to narrative emersion. I have no interest in exact simulation, but I like some feel of reality in my game and a game where the two players have nearly-full-choice seems even further from that than a game with an excess of chance.
Interestingly this conversation comes up among boardgamers as well. Some of them so prefer the player control aspect of a game that having dice or random card draws are seen as a negative when assessing a game. It does give a new perspective on the conversation since wargamers on the other hand tend to regard dice rolling as a near essential part of the experience.
That's exactly right, Elif, random chance indeed has a long tradition in table top wargaming, in my opinion because of its association with warfare.
I too tend to dislike boardgames without random elements. I'm a very big fan of so-called 'Ameritrash' boardgames, like Zcide or Mice and Mystics because of the primacy of shared experience over competition.
I also don't like playing wargames competitively. This does not, however, mean I don't appreciate tight rules and a high degree of player control.
I think it's unfair to draw an association between so-called 'narrative' games and casual, easy, or unchallenging games. Not that I'm saying you have, but I think there's a tendency to do so.
A fluffy army does not have to be a crappy army. A co-op, story-driven game can present difficult tactical challenges to overcome. In short, you don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But it is easier to design a story-driven game because you can gloss over weaknesses in the rule set with 'experience'. You can invite players to not think as critically about the game system, and encourage them to focus on placing a 'good time' over winning.
Now, it's always good to focus on experience over outcome, but again, this doesn't mean you are obliged to undermine the integrity of the system.
Please note that I am not saying that randomness inherently undermines the integrity of a rule set. But I think we can all agree that there comes a point when random chance inevitably undermines the integrity of a game, because at some point the game stops being a game. It stops being an exercise in solving problems and becomes an activity of watching something unpredictable happen.
People who enjoy a competitive game tend to appreciate fairness. The more fair a game is, the more confidence you have that the outcome has been decided by player skill.
But fairness and balance detract nothing from a narrative or uncompetitive game. If there is an 'optimal' way to play, you must provide some context outside the rule set within which it is desirable to make sub-par gameplay choices. And yet the reverse is not true. If there is no 'optimal' way to play, you need no context in which to encourage players to make certain gameplay choices. Nor do you run the risk of a player with the 'wrong mindset' from ruining the game.
There is also a social and intellectual cost to making sub-optimal gameplay choices. You have to justify that choice, even if it is only to yourself. This cost might seem trivial, but it exists. And it gets more difficult to deal with when your choices are compared to other players, who might very well be making optional choices.
It even matters in a co-op game. Brandon's character is having a consistently more significant impact on the game than mine. Billy's character is just as good at doing my character's 'thing' but also good at doing lots of things my character sucks at.
The overall point here is that experience doesn't have to come at the cost of tight, solid, balanced, or whatever you call it game rules. Similarly, choice does not have to come at the cost of unpredictability.
I think we need to note the difference between randomness that sets up the game and randomness that decides the game. The classic "surprise, you just got ambushed" example is the first kind. Something you didn't expect just happened, and now you as the player have to figure out a way to overcome the obstacle by making successful choices. It arguably might be better to have the ambush under player control (for example, by letting the players bid for the right to choose the scenario for the game), but even the random version creates opportunities for interesting player choices rather than negating them. The "surprise, the bride escaped" example is the second kind. There were no player choices involved in the outcome of that game, the GM just made a random draw to decide which side won. The players were nothing more than passive observers of a story that they had no part in writing. And that's the kind of thing that is bad design.
I mostly agree, Peregrine. I think what we're talking about is not so much the fact that you make some choices, but the quality of the choices you make for the game.
I dislike Arkham Horror because I don't feel I make quality decisions in the game. I could look for a clue at one house- and get a random card there, or another one and get a different random card. Either card could have something good for me, and either could have something bad.
I just don't feel like I'm making an informed strategic decision- I feel like I'm making a completely uninformed random decision.
However, I'm ok with random elements deciding the outcome a little bit- sometimes a close game can come down to one extremely tense die roll, for example. When a game has some element of chance in it,and the players all play equally well, then the game can very well come down to a bit of luck. There's nothing wrong with that, is there?
I mean, all of the players made choices that led to a situation where the bride could have escaped. Maybe they figured that the risk was small and prioritized something else (basically, betting on the wrong horse). Maybe the players fought against each other really well or very poorly (ie- they played just as well as one another). Clearly everything about that last random initiative draw was extremely tense and exciting. They sabotaged one another, kept each other from getting to the objective first (if the bride was a player, she clearly played on par with the group such that it came down to the one final draw).
Sure- the game could have included other elements like bidding on initiative- but it isn't necessarily a flaw that the game didn't use those elements. Honestly, I think bidding on initiative is kind of a kooky mechanic- because some turns it is best to go first, and some turns it is best to go last.
Nice topic. I learned it as complexity vs. complication, as per Azreal's distinction. The former deals with interaction of core rules. The latter deals with lots of individual, special rules and exceptions.
I'd also agree with the definition of tactics vs. strategy - the interaction of core rules requiring at least some decision-making, maneuvering etc. in-game; while special rules demand more sifting through before the game, deciding which models you'll take (the stronger ones per point spent, i.e, the mathammered ones), and letting those rules play out without as much in-game input. It's an over-simplistic way to put it, maybe, but at least it's apparent where my preferences lie.
As I always do, I'll point to my introduction to the concept: checking out Epic: Armageddon after being used to 3rd ed 40K. The former stuck to abstracted profiles with a few general 'special' rules, even fewer army- or unit-specific rules, but you had more choice of basic actions to perform, and maneuvres to achieve, with any of your formations: shoot, advance, march, assault, overwatch, crossfire, etc. Initiative, strategy rating and blast-markers also encouraged you to think more about placement of formations, who's supporting who, and so on. More so than the move, shoot, fight, trigger special rule nature of 40K, or so I thought, and think. (Along with the exasperating meta-game of checking off the shopping list for your veteran sergeants, etc.)
It's why I can't really get behind many of the big, popular, all-in-one games, that do things better than GW but in the same kind of GW way. Warmachine's combos; Infinity's monkey-typewriter rules; Malifaux's card game with incidental miniatures... They're not so obvious as 40K, but to my eyes they're still geared to associate certain special rules with certain models, and write out your shopping list for you. The one that involves money, not points. While I'm at it, I'd also caution against viewing AoS's bare core rules and warscrolls as complexity. It's still a lack of choice buried under a lot of special rules.
Randomness: I agree that a game without randomness can feel a bit... dead; but that too much randomness is infuriating. Part of what did my head in with WHFB was looking too often at the random table for the skaven screaming bell. It's an example of what's 'fun' about playing skaven, but at the risk of sounding like an old fogey, after buying and building and painting that model, to have it 'hilariously' blow up or wipe out half of the other models I bought, built, and painted, in a game ostensibly about block maneuvre... nah.
Mindworm's thoughts about randomness are interesting and I agree with the risk vs. reward aspect of it. To combine that and the line about randomness eroding choice, and the above definitions of complexity vs. complication, tactics vs. strategy: what I like, what I think it all boils down to, is making in-game choices that reduce randomness and risk - hopefully in a quite elegant way.
And so I'll rabbit about another game I like: Mayhem, a fantasy mass-battle game. The randomness comes in the form of the number of command points generated each turn, and the few profile stats represented by different polydice (d4-d20). The choices come in the form of default stats (less than what the full dice roll might earn you) and a system of counters that involves the old flank and rear charges, but also weapons, armour, unit type etc. that affect eachother. A kind of advanced 'rock, paper, scissors' that rewards canny placement with improved or increased dice - choices that reduce risk. It makes you think about what you can and should do with each command point, and I find it pretty satisfying.
(Plus, I can represent a screaming bell as a slow chariot with anti-armour abilities, armed with blunderbusses. Another good example of making choices to reduce randomess! )
Although I'm not opposed to more chaotic game styles, under the right circumstances. Something that doesn't take itself too seriously, in price and premise (expensive minis fighting a grim battle for the fate of a world - or a universe) as well as playstyle. Elbow's game looks pretty good in that regard. I've had times like that with Gutshot.
Vermis wrote: Although I'm not opposed to more chaotic game styles, under the right circumstances. Something that doesn't take itself too seriously, in price and premise (expensive minis fighting a grim battle for the fate of a world - or a universe) as well as playstyle. Elbow's game looks pretty good in that regard. I've had times like that with Gutshot.
At its most basic level, Gutshot is a game where you put toy buildings on a table and move around little metal cowboys, pretending they are shooting at each other.
That's an attitude I can get behind, lol. Personally, I think it's a great idea to take event the most 'serious' games with a grain of salt. We're all at the table to have fun!
As mature adults, the simple act of pretending little metal dudes are shooting at each other, absent a meaningful choice-based arbitration system, tends to feel shallow. But keeping alive that spirit of youthful imagination is part of the magic of minis gaming. I'd say it's a really big part.
My personal philosophy is that it is perfectly possible to have your cake and eat it too, which again is what makes minis gaming so awesome. You can have a tight, tactical, game that nevertheless feels easy and fun, or narrative, or cool, or whatever term you use to describe that critical element of youthful imagination.The 'pew pew' vs the 'QQ' if you will.
I think what we've seen in this thread is a discussion of 'tipping points' where game rules (whether by being too 'serious' or 'not serious enough') go too far in eroding your enjoyment of the gameplay.
If Gutshot is any example, there's honestly a lot to be said about not only how a game's rules function, but also how it is presented whether you're talking about setting, theme, and/or even the way rules are written.
Vermis wrote: Nice topic. I learned it as complexity vs. complication, as per Azreal's distinction. The former deals with interaction of core rules. The latter deals with lots of individual, special rules and exceptions.
I'd also agree with the definition of tactics vs. strategy - the interaction of core rules requiring at least some decision-making, maneuvering etc. in-game; while special rules demand more sifting through before the game, deciding which models you'll take (the stronger ones per point spent, i.e, the mathammered ones), and letting those rules play out without as much in-game input. It's an over-simplistic way to put it, maybe, but at least it's apparent where my preferences lie.
I don't mind the oversimplification for the purposes of argument, but I don't think it is accurate to say "Special rules=complication, core rules=complexity."
What I'm saying is that Honor Harringtom's Saginami Island Tactical Simulator does not have special rules at all, but is agonizingly complicated (to the point of being unplayable for most miniatures geeks). A look at one or two of the charts they use to determine shooting is enough to turn away all but the most simulationist gamers.
Being complicated like that gets in the way of tactical gameplay.
Also- I've played a lot of Battletech- largely using the create a mech rules. While there are nearly no special rules involved, the mathhammeriness is massive (the battle afterwards is really to determine who was the better mech engineer, rather than mech tactician).
While I've found that Warmachine is a lot more about the choice you make in a given turn. The heaviness of special rules makes the tactical gameplay very complex (there are tons of things to account for). But the game really rewards that sort of gameplay- and it doesn't reward someone for making the best list but not knowing when and how to go for the assassination.
You have a point. I remember almost breaking out in a rash when I got a glimpse of Napoleon's Battles. Less either/or, more a graph of synergy vs. grit.
As I get older, I find I am less and less interested in complexity. Dan Mersey's Lion Rampant system and associated games is about as complicated as I want to get any more.
I just don;t have time for complexity and there is too much other crap cluttering my head for that noise.
Easy E wrote: As I get older, I find I am less and less interested in complexity. Dan Mersey's Lion Rampant system and associated games is about as complicated as I want to get any more.
I just don;t have time for complexity and there is too much other crap cluttering my head for that noise.
I think this is so true. I tried to get back into Battletech, and OUCH. It doesn't look like it has changed. That is good, but now I am thinking to myself, how come I loved all this stuff when I was younger. Now almost 50, I appreciate Age of Sigmar so much. X-wing I appreciate at as well. I just prefer the simplicity with complexity in my old age now.
Maybe the thing is, it's not the complexity, but the "everything is in your face" or "too much upfront". Like when I went to collage and had to buy my books we had like 2 stacks of books we needed to read. While yes it was over the three years it was pretty daunting at first glance.
With Age of Sigmar and X-wing, it seems we don't need to know a lot "just the basics" and get all the complexity or depth through cards or war scrolls. It just seems less daunting than say 40K is right now, or all those D&D books.
4th edition 40K didn't seem so bad since in the starter set for Battle of Macragge, they had intro rules, beginning rules, or should I say another 16 page book or was it 16 scenarios to ease you into how to play 40K. So you can get into it slowly. For what ever reason GW got rid of that and never introduced it in 5th, 6th or 7th edition. Another reason why I thought 40K wasn't meant for newbies but just veterans.
In my old age, I prefer the gentle or easy method of getting into a game now. Maybe I want my sleep and have less time to read or learn. The less charts the better. The less math the better. Just let me roll my d6 or d8 but with pics on for hits. Nothing complicated. Short and simple.
Here's where I throw in another pet theory: your appetite for complicated games should decrease as you get older, or when you pass a certain age. Young brains - preteens, teens - are still developing and forming masses of neural pathways, and able to soak up a lot of information. But the frontal lobes, involved in decision-making and impulse control, are still undeveloped.
I would say that's a big reason why 40K (and games like Battletech etc.) built up it's popularity with that age group: it's largely sorting out things - strategy - listbuilding - mathhammering - loooads of tiny details - beforehand, with in-game play relying not so much on on-the-spot decisions and interaction of core rules (all but limited to IGOUGO move-shoot-assault) or even army rules, but on remembering which special unit and character rules, or indeed combos, you brought (or bought) with your minis. Not what I'd personally define as tactical.
The frontal lobes don't fully develop until the early to mid-twenties. By that time the huge number of adolescent neural pathways have pared themselves down to a fraction of necessary or well-exercised examples. Then it's more about decision-making, evaluating and weighing things up, less about absorbing lots of details. (That people still play 40K into middle age and beyond, I'd be tempted to put down to familiarity [even GW-mandated familiarity] and nostalgia.)
Sounds a tad pseudoscientific, and I won't say I'm totally right, but look up a few neurology papers or psychology articles on the subject.
YMMV about what would be examples of tactical, decision-making games; but...
While I've found that Warmachine is a lot more about the choice you make in a given turn. The heaviness of special rules makes the tactical gameplay very complex (there are tons of things to account for). But the game really rewards that sort of gameplay- and it doesn't reward someone for making the best list but not knowing when and how to go for the assassination.
I wasn't going to say anything, but aside from your opinion that special rules = tactics (special rules and combos depend on the specific models you decide on beforehand, and IMO a heavy loadout of them isn't especially needed for deep, tactical gameplay), there's an interesting topic in Dakka's Warmahordes board right now, that confirms some of my own opinions of what the game's about, ever since I owned the MkI book and a Cygnar starter set. I also found this little nugget in the middle of it, which I think is interesting. Telling, even.
Forcast wrote: I agree with you on 40k for sure, and 30k is my favorite iteration of 40k right now for sure. Its more "balanced" because there are limited factions and everyone has access to the same basic tools other than a few special units.
I don't think a balanced, tactical game has to have limited factions, or that every faction has to look the same, but I think there's something to be said for 'basic tools' and limiting the 'special' stuff.
After all that, Davor, I don't consider AoS to be particularly simple either. I've said before, it's got simple core rules, so simple that it doesn't allow for any tactical considerations, so most of the gameplay has to come from the individual model/unit rules on the warscrolls. Including all the special rules. Streamlining WFB is supposed to be one of it's good points, but as far as I can see it stripped out the unit positioning and maneuvering (the 'basic tools', the relatively simple, tactical bit) among other things, but kept the special rules bloat. Made it the focus, even. When it hit I checked out the free rules for the old armies I'm interested in - I saw that every unit armed with a bog-standard spear had a different special rule for how to use it. That was as far as I was willing to dig into the specifics, I'm afraid. Combined with 'pile whatever models you want onto the table'...
(By the way, I was a bit tickled to see you describe Warmahordes as a 'pile into the middle of the table' game, in that topic.)
Call me overly cynical (and I am) but with Warmahordes, AoS, Malifaux etc. I'm at the point where I think games with - that need - rule cards for specific models and characters, are more about selling the models that come with those cards than about gameplay. And all that says about the simplicity, or elegance, or complication of those games.
Vermis wrote: Here's where I throw in another pet theory: your appetite for complicated games should decrease as you get older, or when you pass a certain age.
Counter-example: the market for ridiculously complicated historical games with communities full of rivet-counters arguing over absurdly tiny realism issues is not dominated by younger kids. There are plenty of "adult" games that have really complicated rules for various reasons. The issue with 40k isn't that it's complicated, it's that it's incredibly complicated relative to its depth. You have tons of rules to understand and memorize, but very little of it translates into improved gameplay at any point (including in list building). While I suspect GW may be thinking about this brain theory to some degree in writing the rules 40k's success has more to do with "OMG SPACE MARIENS ARE SOOOOO COOOOOL" than anything to do with the rules. Remember, many, if not most, of GW's customers never play the game.
Second counter-example: kids also suck at strategy, math, and list building. Maybe some of them are smart enough to netlist something that doesn't suck, but most of the ones I've encountered bring lists that are absolute garbage. No efficiency, no synergies, just a bunch of random units from their collection thrown together.
Peregrine wrote: ...it's that it's incredibly complicated relative to its depth. You have tons of rules to understand and memorize, but very little of it translates into improved gameplay at any point (including in list building).
For example, as brought up in this thread, we have the following in 40k:
Rage (+A on the charge) Rampage (+A if outnumbered) Furious Charge (+S on the charge) Hatred (re-roll hits in first round) and (tangentially) Zealot (re-roll hits in first round + morale resist)
All of which are different special rules to represent the same concept of "this unit is angry and likes to kill stuff in melee." The differences between them are insignificant in the broad scheme of the game, both for strategic decision-making (including list building) and the average tactical decision you might be called upon to make. That is to say, a unit which has one or more of these rules is a "melee unit" and will likely be included in most lists for the same reasons regardless of which combination it has (e.g. if you want a melee unit, it won't make much difference if it has Rage vs Furious Charge other than the unit's power against certain extremes of target selection), and most decisions made with that unit on the field will be the same as well.
While it is certainly possible to come up with many situations in which one rule might be more or less beneficial than another, it hardly seems worth the effort of having 6 different special rules (plus a plethora of unit/faction specific ones which more or less boil down to "the same as one or two of these, but also better"), compared to having a single special rule with scalability, i.e. "Angry (X)" or some such thing. Then, most units could simply have a value to determine how "Angry" they are, and anything that absolutely needs some extra conditional functionality can have its own special rule on top.
Main factor is available gaming time. If you regularly have the chance for a whole afternoon or day of gaming, you can afford a system with greater complexity in terms of charts, tables and rolls.
If you can only snatch a few hours, a more straight forward 'fixed to hit' affair can help you fit your games into the tighter time frame.
For me, that's the greatest constraint and perhaps failing of tournaments - you've got a weekend to play a set number of games. And that requires a strict time limit. Now with two players not dicking about, that should be ok. But if just one decides they can squeak a victory by slow playing to prevent say, a fifth and sixth turn, then the whole thing becomes frustrating for their opponent, as they miss out on those late game chances to seize objectives - which might've been their plan all along.
Now here, a properly simple system can remove many slow-play opportunities, but sadly not all (micro management of moves, lots of mindless shifting of positions, all in the name of killing time is a sod to remove!).
Me? I like AoS' stripped back rules, and how the war scrolls tell me all I need for that specific unit. Less flipping through books etc. But I also like the sheer variety of 40k. I totally see the drawbacks of both though - they just don't especially bother me, personally.
Lanrak wrote:I often wonder if GWplc thinks 'looks complicated' means its worth more money to GW plcs customer base?
it would certainly match their approach to covering many sculpts with a load of unnecessary 'gribbble' to make it more 'appealing'. .
That is not far off the truth. Just look at a lot of the comments here how a lot of people say not having many pages of rules means there is no complexity in games.
Lanrak wrote:I often wonder if GWplc thinks 'looks complicated' means its worth more money to GW plcs customer base?
it would certainly match their approach to covering many sculpts with a load of unnecessary 'gribbble' to make it more 'appealing'. .
I don't think it's about rules looking complicated but about a cool unit needing to be special. If you want them to be special they need unique rules. So they have universal special rules and sprinkle these over the fancy units but in time that's just not enough and they need to add unique special rules to new units to make them stand out from the rest (i.e.: last year's units) who only have normal special rules. After a few years of this you can have some armies that are completely immune to psychology or leadership tests or that ignore all armour saves or something else that eliminates choices for the player.
Why take A when B is better in all situations. And now you have two problems. You get rules cruft (like explained in a post above where you have half a dozen same/similar rules) that complicates things without adding actual benefits and you get units that get to ignore certain parts of the base game (armour, leadership tests,…) thus reducing complexity in an actually significant way. "A game is a series of interesting choices." – Sid Meier, but if most or all of your army ignores leadership tests then you don't have to consider the problems that could be caused by that, ever.
And yes, the method is similar to their miniature's overall design language that often seems to be about adding greeble to signify eliteness (also big hats and skulls).
As I've gotten older and now have less time, I am appreciating less complex games that require less investment overall than what I traditionally enjoyed - WFB and 40k.
What I am finding is that while more simple rule sets aren't as adaptable as huge bloated systems, they often work better for a specific kind of game.
GW for example wants a single rule set that can do it all, which they CAN, but you run into issues with scaling, balance, and game length among others.
What that means practically for me is that I now play half a dozen different games instead of one or two, that scratch a different nerd itch better and more quickly than in the past. I love x wing, armada, bolt action, BattleLore, frostgrave, and hopefully the new runewars game will be worth my time. I also for the first time have given board games a real shot, and am loving many of them.
Bolt action in particular has really become a great system for me. It's fun, fast, and offers meaningful tactical choices in game while still feeling like a real, full featured miniature game. The rules don't allow for nearly the variation in armies, units, or special load outs that 40k does. But for what it is - a ww2 mini game - I think it's great.
I just have little interest in reading rule tomes and playing 3+ Hour Games anymore. Not because they're objectively a bad thing (I really, really loved WFB back in the day), but My tastes and priorities have changed so that those games just aren't a realistic option anymore.
Tldr - I think it's less about finding a perfect balance that can be applied across the board to different games, and more about putting in the right amount for what kind of game you're trying to make and for whom.
Question now seeing I am not alone in wanting a more "simpler" game because of being older, is how can you make a game for all ages then?
How do you make a game where the veterans or older people still want to game but don't have the time, engery to read all the books or what not, and still make it where the younger crowd 25 and under love the charts, and tomes or what not.
Will be interesting if GW can pull this off with 8th edition. I really hope 8th edition comes out in April. I just can't wait, the suspens is getting to me now. I have put off really making any more 40K armies until I know for sure what is going to happen.
Peregrine wrote:
Counter-example: the market for ridiculously complicated historical games with communities full of rivet-counters arguing over absurdly tiny realism issues is not dominated by younger kids.
Grognards who think they're performing scholarly historical military simulations rather than playing toy soldiers? There are always exceptions, and while I won't claim the 'simulation' lot are in the minority, I'd be interested to see what size their demographic is compared to players of Hail Caesar, Impetus, WRG-based games, etc.
(I'll admit my knowledge of the latter boils down to Field of Glory - somewhat complicated - and HoTT and Dux Bellorum - simple.)
Second counter-example: kids also suck at strategy, math, and list building. Maybe some of them are smart enough to netlist something that doesn't suck, but most of the ones I've encountered bring lists that are absolute garbage. No efficiency, no synergies, just a bunch of random units from their collection thrown together.
And most kids are in the churn 'n' burn category anyway. But I'll bet the ones that stay on (and remember we're not just talking 12-13yos but up to 22-23yos) soon latch on to the best way to win at their favourite game in the GW store, and mathammering taxes calculators more than it does the frontal lobes.
Counter-counter example: when Kings of War showed up it got an immediate shot in the arm from people fed up with the special rules bloat and imbalance of 7th-8th ed WFB. Even more so when GW shook a can of petrol over WFB and lit a match. In both cases, on different forums, I've seen quite a few reactions to it. Some didn't really like it - didn't have the level of grit and chrome they were used to from WFB. They went with The Ninth Age or stuck with 8th or older WFB editions. That's fine. But I felt the majority of responses, after a period of adjustment, were pleasantly surprised by the apparently simplistic rules, the focus on unit blocks and maneuvre over special rules and magic, and how much they turned out to enjoy it. I remember that feeling, and if I can project a bit, I'd say it's because they were shown a mass-battle wargame for the first time, after a long diet of a skirmish game with too many minis. Maybe even that they were at the right age for it.
Xca|iber wrote:
For example, as brought up in this thread, we have the following in 40k:
Rage (+A on the charge)
Rampage (+A if outnumbered)
Furious Charge (+S on the charge)
Hatred (re-roll hits in first round)
and (tangentially) Zealot (re-roll hits in first round + morale resist)
All of which are different special rules to represent the same concept of "this unit is angry and likes to kill stuff in melee."
My own breaking point was a bit simpler - "does it really matter if ogres have a hand weapon or ironfist?" But yeah, your example is a great illustration of the kind of redundant bloat that chased me away. And that's just USRs...
Reminds me of the entry for the 'venomous' rule in Dragon Rampant:
The venom may come from a natural source or an unsaintly weapon... This rule could also be used to represent great strength, or yet another form of magical weapon. Venomous just sounds cooler!
Vermis wrote: Counter-counter example: when Kings of War showed up it got an immediate shot in the arm from people fed up with the special rules bloat and imbalance of 7th-8th ed WFB. Even more so when GW shook a can of petrol over WFB and lit a match. In both cases, on different forums, I've seen quite a few reactions to it. Some didn't really like it - didn't have the level of grit and chrome they were used to from WFB. They went with The Ninth Age or stuck with 8th or older WFB editions. That's fine. But I felt the majority of responses, after a period of adjustment, were pleasantly surprised by the apparently simplistic rules, the focus on unit blocks and maneuvre over special rules and magic, and how much they turned out to enjoy it. I remember that feeling, and if I can project a bit, I'd say it's because they were shown a mass-battle wargame for the first time, after a long diet of a skirmish game with too many minis. Maybe even that they were at the right age for it.
A system like KoW works quite well in order to portray true "mass battles", in the sense that the scale of the game is based on the regiment as a unit. Unit blocks, movement of said blocks, interactions between said blocks, etc., with the rest of the game elements being accesory and complementary to that. That's something the WHFB system will never be able to do, because it's not based on regiments, but individual models. You pay for each individual model and its gear options, and then each one of said models attacks, makes armor saves and is removed as a casualty on an individual basis. As such, you have a system that works fairly well towards representing "dark age"-like battles, with around 50 models on each side. Once you double (or triple, or more) that amount of models, and start adding all kind of enormous monsters, plus magic spells that can wipe out entire units in a single turn phase, the sense of scale is lost completely and the game breaks down as a result. Which is IMO the core issue with WHFB 8th edition.
Also, to have a decently sized army becomes insanely expensive.
Now addressing the thread's main issue, I believe something like "acceptable complexity" depends heavily on the scale of the game you're playing. A skirmish game with 10-15 models per side, models which are meant to act independently from each other (even if they can use combined abilities, they do all kinds of stuff on an individual basis) can afford to have complex rules that enable players to explore many options with great depth and detail. If you begin to increase the model count and the scope of the game (big skirmish, small battle, full-sized battle, etc.) you'll need to streamline rules in multiple ways. The main goal should be to be able to play a normal sized game in about two hours (including deployment).
How can you do such a thing with current 40k? By playing a 1000 points game, or less. That speaks volumes about the current state of the rules, IMO.
Vermis wrote: Grognards who think they're performing scholarly historical military simulations rather than playing toy soldiers? There are always exceptions, and while I won't claim the 'simulation' lot are in the minority, I'd be interested to see what size their demographic is compared to players of Hail Caesar, Impetus, WRG-based games, etc.
I'm sure they're a minority, but that doesn't change the overall point. You can argue psychology and say that kids prefer complicated rules and mature players prefer simple rules with deep strategy, I can just as easily argue psychology and say that kids prefer simple rules with instant gratification while mature players are willing to invest the time and effort required to enjoy a complex and demanding hobby. The connection you're trying to make just doesn't work.
And most kids are in the churn 'n' burn category anyway. But I'll bet the ones that stay on (and remember we're not just talking 12-13yos but up to 22-23yos) soon latch on to the best way to win at their favourite game in the GW store, and mathammering taxes calculators more than it does the frontal lobes.
Again, this doesn't change the overall point. There are lots of younger players (including 20-somethings) who are terrible at list construction. In fact, the trend I've seen across multiple games is that list-building ability increases with age. Kids are hopeless and show up with random garbage, people in their late teens to early 20s are getting better but still not that great, and it's the older players who understand the strategy of list construction and get the biggest advantages from it. This is the exact opposite of the theory that a complex rules-heavy game gives younger players an advantage.
Also, most people in the "suck at strategy, but good at list building" group don't do the math, they just netlist the latest popular thing.
Counter-counter example: when Kings of War showed up it got an immediate shot in the arm from people fed up with the special rules bloat and imbalance of 7th-8th ed WFB.
This doesn't prove anything. The issue with GW's games is not the general question of "how much complexity is justified", it's that GW's games have incredibly complicated rules with very little strategic depth. Of course people moved to KoW, because (as I understand it) KoW offered at least as much strategic depth as WHFB with much simpler rules. This just demonstrates that good game design requires avoiding the trap of increasing complexity without getting anything in return, not that simple games are inherently better. If WHFB had offered more strategic depth or a more accurate simulation of the fluff or whatever, and its complexity was necessary to accomplish its design goals, those people probably wouldn't have left for KoW.
Speaking of Dragon Rampart, has anyone noticed the hidden spell in the book? That gave me a bit of a chuckle.
I believe I saw a quote from Mr. Priestley that espoused the same ideas as Vermis has put forth. Whether his premise is true or not, one of the main designers of many wargames for our time seems to believe in it.
Monte Cooke has made a similar slide away from crunchy RPG systems to the more free-form, no rules systems. Honestly, I find that my tolerance for non-crunchy RPGs has decreased with age.
As a 14 year old, I was definitely rocking the mathhammer, so if there is a rule that "kids don't mathhammer" then I was an exception.
I think Mathhammeriness adds an element to the game that I hadn't considered in my first examples. It adds a way to 'play' the game when you don't have an opponent. I mean, as a teenager, and before I was married, I had a lot more free time to fill. One of the things I would do is make army lists, or design mechs.
I don't like to spend time list building now- but it was definitely an enjoyable experience when I was younger. I didn't even need to collect or play the lists to enjoy creating forces that really squeeze all of the power out of their points. In some instances, it was more rewarding than actually playing the list and tabling my friend's army in the second turn (only happened once).
Vermis wrote:
I don't think a balanced, tactical game has to have limited factions, or that every faction has to look the same, but I think there's something to be said for 'basic tools' and limiting the 'special' stuff...
Call me overly cynical (and I am) but with Warmahordes, AoS, Malifaux etc. I'm at the point where I think games with - that need - rule cards for specific models and characters, are more about selling the models that come with those cards than about gameplay. And all that says about the simplicity, or elegance, or complication of those games.
You are overly cynical. I probably wouldn't have said that, but you did ask for it.
Cards are a presentation mechanism- one that is helpful for learning and remembering rules, and especially makes it easy to figure out how rules interact (since the exact phrasing of the rules are right in front of you).
This does free up design space to make individual rules that are more complex. But on the money side of things- it makes it so that players often do not buy army books (many card-stat games don't even sell army books). So I don't see how putting stats on cards instead of in a book makes the game more profit centric.
Privateer Press have shown that they are concerned with game balance on so many instances that it just seems silly to suggest that they ignore their rules set in favor of selling more minis. What they do is tend to their rules set carefully in hopes that it sells more minis (the game balance between factions is very strong, so far as tabletop miniatures games are concerned).
The question is not how many rules there are, but whether or not they each become tactical considerations.
Mind- the game can become taxing sometimes, because of all the things you need to consider when you take your turn- the tactical complexity really gets crazy.
Peregrine wrote: Second counter-example: kids also suck at strategy, math, and list building. Maybe some of them are smart enough to netlist something that doesn't suck, but most of the ones I've encountered bring lists that are absolute garbage. No efficiency, no synergies, just a bunch of random units from their collection thrown together.
What age do you draw the line at 'kids'? I have a nephew that's been playing Infinity (a system that is notoriously complicated) since he was 11, starting with the semi spanglish second edition. He's now 15, and regularly cleans up the older, more experienced guys in the group. He also recently became the groups Warcor (Press Ganger/Henchman/Outrider/etc equivalent) and has already run a successful slow grow league.
That is a joke.
