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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
My KOG light game encapsulates what I'm looking for in a TTWG design, and yes, it's clear that you are looking for something which is very different. What I don't understand is why you are playing TTWGs at all, given that you seem to consistently argue for something more akin to a RPG which happens to battle on a tabletop.

Because I play TTWG and I do not play RPGs, seems quite obvious to me but it seems you do not get it, oh well.

Skirmish wargames need more detail because elements involved are few, larger wargames need abstraction the bigger the scale the biggest the abstraction, but in all cases the rules must be clear, balanced, without resorting to players finding a suitable solution or dicing it off to see who is right and the game elements but always be clear to both players regardless of scale and scope.

RPG are a framework to tell a story, imprecise and unbalanced because this does not matter and the game master will short it out if needs be, I do not design RPG and rarely run RPG.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

To me, though, smoke (in a black powder game or a modern game involving smoke) can be an important part of the game as mechanism and scenery. In other words it isn 't visual obstruction, it is visual enhancement of an actual part of the game.

For me, as long as it is kept in a small unobscuring size it does not matter and it is a 3D marker, my objection is when as an element it becomes big and obscuring.

It is obvious to me that you have an exceedingly particular and narrow sort of TTWG in mind that does not adequately consider alternative ways of gaming, as this entire thread has shown. You seem to be arguing that there is only One True Way to TTWG, even if that OTW is at odds with how to best represent blackpowder-era wargaming, to the point that you demand blackpowder conform to your way of playing, even when it is illogical. You also fail to understand that you are arguing for the most pernicious trend in modern TTWG, that of the excessive special rules, with special rules (and markers!) for every little thing, despite the possibility and practice of more elegant solutions (e.g. smoke). All because you personally like the clutter of markers (and their special rules).

Further, I categorically disagree that skirmish wargames *need* more detail. It is perfectly acceptable for a skirmish wargame to be streamlined and smooth, resulting in faster gameplay. I see such streamlined gameplay as a sign of design elegance and editing. That you argue for "more detail" is again reinforcing my observation that you really want a RPG-like game on the tabletop.

In a similar way, large games can be highly detailed. It just means the game takes longer to play and resolve. The current 1850+pt Tournament 40k games are testament to that.

Finally, you display (and then admit)gross ignorance about RPGs when you claim that RPGs "are a framework to tell a story, imprecise and unbalanced because this does not matter." RPGs can be just as precisely balanced as anything else. That they involve storytelling and a game master doesn't change that. In any case, the fiddliness that you seem to want cannot be balanced any better than the fiddliness of a RPG, because that is the inherent nature of fiddliness. High complexity creates cross-interactions that are impossible to cost in any sort of fixed, granular system.

It would be nice if you would just accept that there is more than one valid way to play a TTWG, and that such TTWG don't need to be over-detailed things laden with special rules (and associated markers), pretending to be balanced (when such balance is a formal impossibility).

You know, I restricted myself the entire thread to write exactly this comment directed at you.

Unfortunately, everything you wrote applies for you.

As I said we are in the entirely different ends of game design and expect and demand the exactly opposing things.

No, not in the least. I get that you like a certain sort of game, and that's fine.

I just don't think you should be pushing that sort of game to the blackpowder era. At all.

Dystopian wars would have been a really pretty game if it weren't for the tokens.
I did a few things with my set to make it a bit less jarring.
I made hit markers as splashes: 1hp/small 5hp/large and fire markers with cotton wool.
They used actual models for the tiny flyer tokens, unlike BFG.
I tried to mark effects on a unit card to the side of the board as much as possible.
The Metzger Robot had both Walking and Wading versions of the models, this could be applied to most games with, prone, hidden, stealth variants of each model.
I try with all games to use dice that nearly match the table surface, it doesn't make counting too much harder and is way better than 100 bright yellow dice on the table. Or you could use a dice tray.
In 40k being able to remove weapons for weapon destroyed results helps too.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
They used actual models for the tiny flyer tokens, unlike BFG.

BFG fighter / bomber models existed. They just didn't sell well because they were super expensive as markers, 6 tiny models per $10 blister.

The "clutter" is one of the things that puts me off Star Wars Armada. I really don't like the bases - raised up off the tabletop, with all the little dials. It's just too visually intrusive for me.