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.

The ideas are pretty much standard in historical wargame rules.

I'd be interested to know what the super secret is, as I suspect that I can point to an historical rule set that already uses it.

The stated ground scale is intriguing. 1/125th scale but smaller than Flames of War minis, suggests that this is more of an attempt to hedge around feared IP infringement than a rules choice relating to actual ground scale.

That is assuming that the OP has not designed a range of minis to go with the rules.

Mr. Burning wrote:Come back when you have some beta rules to provide us with.

Seriously, the ideas sound promising but that praise is based of how the mechanics you outline are working with other game systems.

Until you have something tangible your posting is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

The most creative people are willing to put their work out their and not hide it for fear of copycats.

That's a pretty arrogant statement. Apparently none of you read posts too well. I want to keep the fluff a secret, the mechanics is not what I'm too worried about although its execution is something I like to keep ambigious until I smooth a few things out first before putting a full fledged "Beta" out for deeper examination. Oh and by the way I was being facetious with strombones so all that knee-jerking is failure on your part.

Haight wrote: A bunch of knee-jerking rants and ravings.

Noted and ignored. You could have overlooked this thread if you were going to harangue me.

marielle wrote:The ideas are pretty much standard in historical wargame rules.

I'd be interested to know what the super secret is, as I suspect that I can point to an historical rule set that already uses it.

The stated ground scale is intriguing. 1/125th scale but smaller than Flames of War minis, suggests that this is more of an attempt to hedge around feared IP infringement than a rules choice relating to actual ground scale.

That is assuming that the OP has not designed a range of minis to go with the rules.

The super secret is the fluff mainly. I'm holding back because I need a few more play tests to iron out some wrinkles into the game due to some stacking and minor things I overlooked from a recent playtest. Poor timing on my part, sorry.

You catch on quick about the scale part. I knew someone was going to catch on soon enough. Yes the reason for the odd scale is an attempt to hedge around IP infringement because I have read that has sunk a lot of projects more than anything other than procrastination.

The alternating activations and reactions is probably the one part I'm being reluctant to go into deep detials since I recently (very recently) discovered a flaw due to some stacking issues. The sooner I can rehash this thing the more I'll put it out. Again it was poor timing if only the other belligerent posters here can see that...

If the secret stuff is fluff, then work on a barebones beta ruleset that people can play.

 Alfndrate wrote:
If the secret stuff is fluff, then work on a barebones beta ruleset that people can play.

I'm working on it. Just bear with me.

I didn't realize I found a major flaw in my design from a recent playtest at a local game and I'm on damage control (and panic mode).

Heavy Metal wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
If the secret stuff is fluff, then work on a barebones beta ruleset that people can play.

I'm working on it. Just bear with me.

I didn't realize I found a major flaw in my design from a recent playtest at a local game and I'm on damage control (and panic mode).

There's no reason to panic, and no reason to control damage. You don't have a product published and released in the wild as a final product.

Rules are only a small part of miniatures game. What most attracts people to a game is: the miniatures, the fluff, the cost, and the size of the playerbase. You probably need to work on those things the most right now, since you seem to have a good idea of what you want ruleswise.

Also, you need to be calm, cool-headed, and collected to succeed in...basically anything. Flying off the handle at random strangers on the internet isn't a sign of that. This IS the internet - you can't expect to start a thread asking for people's opinions and expect to get nothing but compliments and affirmation. Besides, I read Absolutionis' comments, and they were quite solid and seemed sincere and well-thought out, even though I disagreed with quite a few of them. Being able to accept and consider criticism (any kind!) is a valuable tool for all kinds of things, even if you don't act on that criticism.


~Tim?

Nothing arrogant about my statements at all.

You may have been better served by waiting to post when you had the beta ruleset finished. So we could have given feedback on your game rules - as the title of this thread suggests.

As for super secret fluff i'll reserve judgement until you deem fit to show us this brave new world but remember ideas are open knowledge - they are floating around out there waiting for someone to come into the open and claim them.

It may not be you.

When it comes to both card and miniature gaming I think that the fluff is very important to help define the mechanics of the game. How the rules interact between a fantasy game and a modern or sci fi game is usually based on the feel they are trying to establish.

If you want shooting to be a minimal part of the game it makes sense to define it by the setting/fluff, like a gladiatorial fight or ancient cave man days. If you want an old west game then you want rules to reflect the dramatic show down at high noon. If you want to do a racing game you better have mechanics built around positioning and the car's performance, etc, etc. Right now saying it's going to be a 2d6 system with units is about as generic as you can possibly get and gives no idea what the mechanics are being built for.

Right now the only mention of the setting is that it's sci fi somewhere between stracraft and battletech. Is it a game focused on infantry? does it use vehicles? is it combined arms? does it focus on starship combat? or planetary invasions?


You can present whatever rules ideas you come up with, but even if you have a great rules set there's little for people to grasp onto as they have no idea if it fits the right feel for the setting or not. In their most basic sense the majority of board games and miniature games are the same, but the trappings and spin you place on how the dice and cards are implemented are what make them stand out as unique. For example Monopoly and Life have a similar base concept, roll some dice, advance your guy, and use cards to impact your advancement towards winning. However their story is different which helps determines how the mechanics differ and create a different feel for each game.

I worked with WOTC and AEG for over ten years doing playtesting and even lead design work, what we always started off with was a discussion about what is the story of the game and how do we capture the feel of x for this game? Then we began designing the rules around that. That element was the "hook" that would draw players in and also what helped separate it from the vast sea of other games. So what is you hook for the game? Asside from taking lots of concepts from other games what is the selling point that will drive people to play this game?


.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


You may have been better served by waiting to post when you had the beta ruleset finished. So we could have given feedback on your game rules - as the title of this thread suggests.

This is the crux of the issue. The title of the thead asks for criticism of a ruleset you haven't shown, and you're oddly protective of your fluff.

1) Put just enough of the fluff in to make a context for the rules.
2) Show us that and the rules.

There's really no point to this thread until you do.

I'll second that the fluff is terribly important to get buy in. My 'WTFBBQ' reaction to casters and steampunk keeps me out of Warmachine almost exclusively. I've played it and think the rules are amazing, much better than 40k. But I don't play Warmachine...I play 40k. And local buy in for both products is about the same, and 40k costs more...so...yah. Fluff doth matta!

Paulson, I'd love to know what AEG stuff you worked on. I was a huge AEG CCG fan back in the day and lately I've waned because of how bad some of the design team showed their love for certain factions in L5R.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I'll second that the fluff is terribly important to get buy in. My 'WTFBBQ' reaction to casters and steampunk keeps me out of Warmachine almost exclusively. I've played it and think the rules are amazing, much better than 40k. But I don't play Warmachine...I play 40k. And local buy in for both products is about the same, and 40k costs more...so...yah. Fluff doth matta!
.

I hold the opposite perspective. To an extent, I will agree with you. Fluff is a hook that, while if it is lacking, it can make the game a big empty. But it's not the be all and end all. If that's the case, I'll just fill the void myself.

I put big emphasis on engaging, immersive rules. I left 40k behind both for its bad balance, but also it's frustrating, clunky, bloated, excessive, counter intuitive, and badly designed rules set simply wasn't fun. I found myself shaking my head and rolling my eyes constantly when playing games, because in my opinion, the rules failed to deliver on so many levels. It was, in my opinion, a shoddy product. I won't run with bad trainers. I won't box with bad gloves. I won't play wargames with bad rules. Ultimately, I walked away.

If the rules are great, but the fluff is bad, I'll just port over the fluff from another system. If the rules are bad, I won't play

Haight wrote: A bunch of knee-jerking rants and ravings.

Noted and ignored. You could have overlooked this thread if you were going to harangue me.

Nothing says internet badass like announcing you're ignoring someone when they give criticism - albeit blunt.

Can't wait to read your ruleset when they become commercially available and you prove me wrong.

After all there are just SO many commercially successful one man design studios that have taken half their ideas from other games, and claim the others are soopa sekrit (tm, patent pending, Copyrighted, all rights reserved, ofc, wouldn't want to infringe on your fledgeling IP).

paulson games wrote:When it comes to both card and miniature gaming I think that the fluff is very important to help define the mechanics of the game. How the rules interact between a fantasy game and a modern or sci fi game is usually based on the feel they are trying to establish.

If you want shooting to be a minimal part of the game it makes sense to define it by the setting/fluff, like a gladiatorial fight or ancient cave man days. If you want an old west game then you want rules to reflect the dramatic show down at high noon. If you want to do a racing game you better have mechanics built around positioning and the car's performance, etc, etc. Right now saying it's going to be a 2d6 system with units is about as generic as you can possibly get and gives no idea what the mechanics are being built for.

Right now the only mention of the setting is that it's sci fi somewhere between stracraft and battletech. Is it a game focused on infantry? does it use vehicles? is it combined arms? does it focus on starship combat? or planetary invasions?

You can present whatever rules ideas you come up with, but even if you have a great rules set there's little for people to grasp onto as they have no idea if it fits the right feel for the setting or not. In their most basic sense the majority of board games and miniature games are the same, but the trappings and spin you place on how the dice and cards are implemented are what make them stand out as unique. For example Monopoly and Life have a similar base concept, roll some dice, advance your guy, and use cards to impact your advancement towards winning. However their story is different which helps determines how the mechanics differ and create a different feel for each game.

I worked with WOTC and AEG for over ten years doing playtesting and even lead design work, what we always started off with was a discussion about what is the story of the game and how do we capture the feel of x for this game? Then we began designing the rules around that. That element was the "hook" that would draw players in and also what helped separate it from the vast sea of other games. So what is you hook for the game? Asside from taking lots of concepts from other games what is the selling point that will drive people to play this game?

That’s not fluff to me. Wanting to know if it is a planetary or a spaceship game is the type of game it is. I don’t know if I am on a completely different page but fluff pertaining the back story is what I’m protecting the mechanics and the type of game isn’t the secret but something I'm holding off until I can fix it. This is why I want people such as you to ask questions because I don’t know exactly what all I need to put out there as far as details to get it rolling for a play test. Last time I tried to cover all basis I made a big wall of text that no one wanted then there was a bunch of drama then left the forum because of all the ego stroking and negativity.

I have to put the rules on hold for a few days because I stumbled upon a huge design goof. As I told someone previously I’m on damage control and panic mode but my hectic job situation due to weather is helping matters. Stay tuned.

To answer your questions directly, no this is not a starship combat game. I would like to integrate that into this game at some point and time however I’m just getting the damn thing rolling as a ground game. I’m trying to make (and the selling point) a game using combined arms combat in a non-typical science fiction environment on a planetary playing field focusing on troops, tanks, artillery, army aviation and electronic warfare. The whole “starcraft meets battletech” description is the only way can I describe the universe without killing this thread with walls of text. Nobody likes the big wall of text. I want to put forth that industrial feel without it feeling gothic while maintaining that sleek and shiny technological flair. I could have went with halo meets battletech or call of duty meets AT-43 or any combination that may have caught more attention but that boils down to saying something that I hope sounds cool versus say something that I actually want. Not as easy as I thought it would be. Main thing is to avoid the typical stereotypes on most science fiction games such a zany laser weapons and creepy aliens.

I suppose to answer your question even further is also my most ambitious part of the game which is to go away from the “list building” style miniature game. 40k emphasizes on army list composition as well as dozens other games in similar ways. Even Warmachine has an emphasis on a list composition albeit more heavily on the warcaster. I guess I can say I have an emphasis on capability versus composition.

Farseer Faenyin wrote:I'll second that the fluff is terribly important to get buy in. My 'WTFBBQ' reaction to casters and steampunk keeps me out of Warmachine almost exclusively. I've played it and think the rules are amazing, much better than 40k. But I don't play Warmachine...I play 40k. And local buy in for both products is about the same, and 40k costs more...so...yah. Fluff doth matta!

Paulson, I'd love to know what AEG stuff you worked on. I was a huge AEG CCG fan back in the day and lately I've waned because of how bad some of the design team showed their love for certain factions in L5R.

I find that as a rather extreme perspective but that’s your choice. My choice is to keep my fluff sealed since it is not essential for a play test.

Deadnight wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I'll second that the fluff is terribly important to get buy in. My 'WTFBBQ' reaction to casters and steampunk keeps me out of Warmachine almost exclusively. I've played it and think the rules are amazing, much better than 40k. But I don't play Warmachine...I play 40k. And local buy in for both products is about the same, and 40k costs more...so...yah. Fluff doth matta!

I hold the opposite perspective. To an extent, I will agree with you. Fluff is a hook that, while if it is lacking, it can make the game a big empty. But it's not the be all and end all. If that's the case, I'll just fill the void myself.

I put big emphasis on engaging, immersive rules. I left 40k behind both for its bad balance, but also it's frustrating, clunky, bloated, excessive, counter intuitive, and badly designed rules set simply wasn't fun. I found myself shaking my head and rolling my eyes constantly when playing games, because in my opinion, the rules failed to deliver on so many levels. It was, in my opinion, a shoddy product. I won't run with bad trainers. I won't box with bad gloves. I won't play wargames with bad rules. Ultimately, I walked away.

If the rules are great, but the fluff is bad, I'll just port over the fluff from another system. If the rules are bad, I won't play

That was straight to the point and I agree 100%.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Rules are only a small part of miniatures game. What most attracts people to a game is: the miniatures, the fluff, the cost, and the size of the playerbase. You probably need to work on those things the most right now, since you seem to have a good idea of what you want ruleswise.
~Tim?

The miniatures are an entire different matter. I can say for certain they’re (currently) in better shape than the ruleset at the moment even if they are homebrewed. Still I don’t want the miniatures, the fluff, the ruleset or any one part of the this game to be a crutch to overshadow parts that are lacking. I’m looking for balance and so far I’m shooting in the dark.

Mr. Burning wrote:Nothing arrogant about my statements at all.

You may have been better served by waiting to post when you had the beta ruleset finished. So we could have given feedback on your game rules - as the title of this thread suggests.

As for super secret fluff i'll reserve judgement until you deem fit to show us this brave new world but remember ideas are open knowledge - they are floating around out there waiting for someone to come into the open and claim them.

It may not be you.

I never said I had the best timing in the world. Reserve judgment all you want but ideas are open knowledge until a specific idea is made. No idea is created equal or being a great one equally.

We don’t see eye to eye on this but you make good points nonetheless.

Is there a way I can put a sample of my ruleset without killing this thread with walls of text?

Heavy Metal wrote:
Is there a way I can put a sample of my ruleset without killing this thread with walls of text?

Try organizing your rules into sections and divide them with spoilers. It may make walls of text but it will shorten it significantly (well... unless you open the spoiler that is. Kind of like this:

Movement


Firing

SkavenLord wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:
Is there a way I can put a sample of my ruleset without killing this thread with walls of text?

Try organizing your rules into sections and divide them with spoilers. It may make walls of text but it will shorten it significantly (well... unless you open the spoiler that is. Kind of like this:

Movement

Spoiler:

Here's one part

Firing

Spoiler:

And here's another

Thanks a bunch, I'll give it a shot as soon as I'm done editing.