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.

Tabletop Game Design Deadly Sins

We’ve all played Tabletop games and there are aspects we all enjoy, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s looked at certain design decisions in regards to the game and said “how did this not go badly in your head?” So here they are, a list of the tabletop game design deadly sins and the punishment the designers will endure in their circle of hell for violating them. Feel free to add on as you like.


Making rules for a model that you don’t produce
One of Three caveats to this sin must be met for this infraction to be severe enough to warrant punishment:
-The rules are good enough that people will want to use the model
-The description/pictures of the model are vague or non-existent
-No recommended base or model size
Punishment: Staring at the world’s greatest cake on the other side of bullet proof glass for eternity. If you meet all 3 caveats, the world’s most refreshing glass of water is beside the cake and you’re on fire.

Making “official” FAQs “optional”
Yes it’s a game, but a game people spend hundreds of dollars on and fly/drive hours to large national events to play, so not taking it seriously enough to say your FAQs are more than house rules is a severe insult to all players. This also includes any statement in a FAQ that involves some sort of wild west-type quick draw scenario to see which rules work first or some sort of gentlemanly discussion to find out how rules interact.
Punishment: Play games of chess for eternity where the rules for taking an enemy piece are only mentioned in the “optional” FAQ

Allowing players to use opponent’s models
This includes, but is not limited to: Allowing a player to move an opposing unit, shoot with an opposing unit or assault with an opposing unit.
Punishment: Beaten to death with your own arms for eternity. If you allow a player to do all 3 with an opponent’s unit, the punishment is the same, but your arms have chainsaws in them.

Making units or models invulnerable to attacks unless they are of a certain type
This doesn’t include situations where units receive bonuses against attacks of a certain type, only ones where models cannot be hurt regardless of dice rolls or stats unless you have a symbol or special rule on your weapon.
Punishment: Playing Rock-Paper-Scissors for eternity.

First turn charges
Only situations where an opponent can set up him army using normal deployment rules and can be fighting in melee on the top of 1.
Punishment: Beaten with the but of your own rifle for eternity.

Mastershake wrote:
Making rules for a model that you don’t produce
One of Three caveats to this sin must be met for this infraction to be severe enough to warrant punishment:
-The rules are good enough that people will want to use the model
-The description/pictures of the model are vague or non-existent
-No recommended base or model size
Punishment: Staring at the world’s greatest cake on the other side of bullet proof glass for eternity. If you meet all 3 caveats, the world’s most refreshing glass of water is beside the cake and you’re on fire.

I'd stay away from historical games then. There are a lot of companies that produce only rule sets and no miniatures. I believe DBM has been pretty popular for a long time. They don't make any miniatures.

I don't think this is a big deal. Just scratch build or convert something. If it's a front line unit, it will probably get made. Is there a specific unit and/or model you are thinking of? The new Blood Angels stuff doesn't count since the book just came out last week. I would not consider a delay between rules and a model release any sort of sin.

Mastershake wrote:
Making “official” FAQs “optional”
Yes it’s a game, but a game people spend hundreds of dollars on and fly/drive hours to large national events to play, so not taking it seriously enough to say your FAQs are more than house rules is a severe insult to all players. This also includes any statement in a FAQ that involves some sort of wild west-type quick draw scenario to see which rules work first or some sort of gentlemanly discussion to find out how rules interact.
Punishment: Play games of chess for eternity where the rules for taking an enemy piece are only mentioned in the “optional” FAQ

FAQs are a big turn off for many people. I hate showing up to play a game and someone pulls out some online FAQ from a forum that has modified the rules for my miniatures (I'm looking at you PP). There are a lot of casual gamers who don't care and don't want to take the time to constantly check the internet for rules updates and FAQs. If it's not in the rulebook it doesn't exist. I support FAQs being optional because this is just a game and having to constantly check for updates is a pain in the ass.

Mastershake wrote:
Making units or models invulnerable to attacks unless they are of a certain type
This doesn’t include situations where units receive bonuses against attacks of a certain type, only ones where models cannot be hurt regardless of dice rolls or stats unless you have a symbol or special rule on your weapon.
Punishment: Playing Rock-Paper-Scissors for eternity.

Can you give an example? I can't think of anything that is immune to everything except a certain type of attack.

Mastershake wrote:

First turn charges
Only situations where an opponent can set up him army using normal deployment rules and can be fighting in melee on the top of 1.
Punishment: Beaten with the but of your own rifle for eternity.

It's not the designers fault if you set up in range of an assault army knowing it has the potential to reach you on turn 1. 40K, WFB, and Warmachine generally have a large enough deployment zone that you can use to buffer if needed. If you set up and tried to get off a charge, failed, and then got charged on turn 1, that is your fault.

Real Tabletop Game Design Sins are:
1. Lack of playtesting
2. Obvious Loopholes and rules that are easily abused
3. Not developing balanced factions
4. Vague rules that, with some effort, could have been more user friendly

Cool! Head down to the proposed rules forum and show us you can do better!

Nurglitch wrote:Cool! Head down to the proposed rules forum and show us you can do better!

Why do people always say that about miniature games? If my car doesn't work, I'm going to bring it back to the dealer. I'll want it fixed and would like the auto manufacturer to build a better car. I'm not going to go out to my garage and build my own car from scratch.

I'm not trying to argue, but I think the OP has a legitimate topic here. I don't agree with all the 'sins', but it's just a discussion about mistakes to avoid when designing a game.

2112 wrote:

Mastershake wrote:
Making units or models invulnerable to attacks unless they are of a certain type
This doesn’t include situations where units receive bonuses against attacks of a certain type, only ones where models cannot be hurt regardless of dice rolls or stats unless you have a symbol or special rule on your weapon.
Punishment: Playing Rock-Paper-Scissors for eternity.

Can you give an example? I can't think of anything that is immune to everything except a certain type of attack.

He's probably talking about units with the Ethereal rule(WHFB): They're immune to everything but Magical attacks(but can still lose wounds due to Combat Res).

I think the rules operates similarly in WarmaHordes, too.

That said, I disagree with him on it. Just try punching a non-corporeal ghost for yourself.

Also:

2112 wrote:Real Tabletop Game Design Sins are:
1. Lack of playtesting
2. Obvious Loopholes and rules that are easily abused
3. Not developing balanced factions
4. Vague rules that, with some effort, could have been more user friendly

Agreed. The OP's list just sounds like personal grievances, not actual problems inherent in the system.

So does anyone who's responded so far know what a joke is?

Nurglitch wrote:
Cool! Head down to the proposed rules forum and show us you can do better!

*start sarcasm* You're right, if I post things in the proposed rules section I'm sure they'll reach game designers the world over and become the norm! *end sarcasm* on a more serious note, this isn't a serious thread.

Dude, sorry, but your "sins" sound pretty whiny to me. I don't have a problem with any of them in principle. 2112 has it right.

I would add:

5: Mechanics representing "realism" should be included only if they add something to the game beyond adding "realism".
6: Abstraction is great, but in general people have fun rolling more dice at once than fewer dice several times to get the same result.
7: Every choice should be a meaningful choice. Choosing between two options where A is obviously always superior to B isn't really a choice, it's just a waste of time.
8: Gamers basically want to feel like they are the most important actor in the scope of the mythology they're playing in. Gamers will almost always want to play the knight, rather than the peasant.

Mastershake:

Apparently not you!

2112:

Cars are not games. However, if you're going to diagnos aspects of game design, then chances are you're going to be able to design a game yourself.

Making rules for a model that you don’t produce?
- Are players devoid of imagination & creativity such that they cannot create their own?

Making “official” FAQs “optional”
- Is there only one way to play the game?

Allowing players to use opponent’s models
- While a "no touching" rule is nice, if you're not playing against tools, it's not a big deal.

Making units or models invulnerable to attacks unless they are of a certain type
- Oh, no, some stuff is hard to kill!

First turn charges
- Newsflash: Opponent needs to cooperate to make this happen.

Mastershake wrote:
Making rules for a model that you don’t produce
One of Three caveats to this sin must be met for this infraction to be severe enough to warrant punishment:
-The rules are good enough that people will want to use the model
-The description/pictures of the model are vague or non-existent
-No recommended base or model size
Punishment: Staring at the world’s greatest cake on the other side of bullet proof glass for eternity. If you meet all 3 caveats, the world’s most refreshing glass of water is beside the cake and you’re on fire.

We've been over this before. Economically, there's only a certain number of kits that can be made for an army. And there has to be a minimum sell otherwise it's pointless. Plus, of course shelf space premium. So, assuming they release as much of an army that is economically viable, you're not actually saying "Release all the models in the codex". You're saying "Reduce the options in the codex to fit the model range".

In my opinion, anything that reduces the options available in a given codex reduces the fun of the game, as it reduces the number of different lists and armies you can build, and reduces variety across the metagame.

So I'm all for them adding LOTS of different things into codexes, and just releasing what is feasible. I'll happily convert the rest.

I wish they'd make models for units that don't have them (or that at least FW would do it), but I like having the options regardless so I'm not too turned off by having to scratchbuild them if I have to.

Hi all.
To quote RP,'.... rules should be written with clarity , brevity and wit.'

Therfore if the desired game play con not be achive within the body of the core rules, something has gone a bit wrong.

If a game relies on lots of additional exceptions (USRs and special rules in 40k,) to achive gameplay, the basic rules just are NOT doing thier job properly.

Allowing a few 'special abilities' to give specific units more character, eg Amphibiuos units treat water based terrain as open ground,chemical weapons ignore cover , etc is ok (IMO.)

But if you have to frequently 'break core rules -game mechanics', this may indicate the core rules are not right for the game paly you want to achive!

TTFN
Lanrak.

Sidstyler wrote:I wish they'd make models for units that don't have them (or that at least FW would do it), but I like having the options regardless so I'm not too turned off by having to scratchbuild them if I have to.

I'm not especially fussed either way, but I'd be totally happy if GW just started selling "Bitz Kitz" for the things that don't yet have models but maybe aren't all that profitable to make whole-hog. The Kitz could have the components that are difficult to sculpt from scratch or convert or purchase in bulk, and then we could add them to an existing GW product to make the new model.