Switch Theme:

Acceptable Complexity in Games  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

nareik wrote:
 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.

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

Davor wrote:
morgoth wrote:
Spoiler:
Davor wrote:
morgoth wrote:
Davor wrote:

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?"

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/26 19:20:36


We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Stonecold Gimster






morgoth wrote:


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.

My Painting Blog: http://gimgamgoo.com/
Currently most played: Silent Death, Xenos Rampant, Mars Code Aurora and Battletech.
I tried dabbling with 40k9/10 again and tried AoS3 - disliked both, but I'm enjoying HH2 and trying Battletech Classic and AS out 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 Stormonu wrote:

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.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




@ 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/27 01:14:58


Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.

Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".  
   
Made in jp
Fixture of Dakka





Japan

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.

Keep it simple and stupid is my opinion on rules

Squidbot;
"That sound? That's the sound of me drinking all my paint and stabbing myself in the eyes with my brushes. "
My Doombringer Space Marine Army
Hello Kitty Space Marines project
Buddhist Space marine Project
Other Projects
Imageshack deleted all my Images Thank you! 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gimgamgoo wrote:
morgoth wrote:


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.
   
Made in gr
Longtime Dakkanaut




Halandri

 Stormonu wrote:
nareik wrote:
 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.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




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.
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





Orem, Utah

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 08:13:03


 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Just a quick note on randomness as found in 40k .

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.

   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




Lanrak wrote:

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.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 13:25:43


 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 13:29:30


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





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.

 
   
Made in us
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






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.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Mindworm hits on several good points.

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.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




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.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




morgoth wrote:
Lanrak wrote:

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 18:34:11


Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.

Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".  
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

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.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




Davor wrote:
morgoth wrote:
Lanrak wrote:

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.

I do not believe that makes any sense.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





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.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Armpit of NY

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.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/29 04:33:00


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@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....



   
Made in gb
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





staffordshire england

Would it be better if GW produced two sets of rules. I.E. standard and advanced. (Startup / family and tournament / casual pick up).



Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men.
Welcome to Fantasy 40k

If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.

Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Peregrine,

It's obvious you and I have very different ideas about playing miniature wargames, which is fine. I take it you don't play in many convention games?
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Peregrine wrote:
 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.
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

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.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.

FTFY

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/29 14:12:00


 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: