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.

I've been noticing alot of folks posting regarding games they are making, or thinking of making and I was wondering...

When you are starting this process, are you starting from the rules or background?

I don't do much in the way of game designing (though someday I'll finish my auto battle rules...) though my club makes our own backgound for all our games and when it comes to rules we select from a variety of generic rulesets based on what kind of game we want to play. (Examples. Fantasy Skirmish: Song of Blades, Sci-Fantasy Platoon combat: WarEngine, Hard-Sci-Fi: Tomorrow's war, etc, etc)

One reason I'm asking, is that -while not wanting to stifle anyone's creativity- I'm always surprised at the number of folks who want to write their own rulesets, when there are so many good ones -many of which are free or cheap- out there already. So many of the rule projects I see on the forums never go anywhere, and I wonder if more of these projects would go further if folks just grabbed a pre-existing set of rules and bolted their own fluff onto it.

The other reason I'm asking (and a sub question) is I wonder if many of the rulesets-in-development on dakka have a definite goal in mind for what kind of gameplay they are going for? An example of a goal might be: "A platoon level (20-40 minis per side) fantasy ruleset with alternating unit activation, medium-complex rules with an average game time of 3 hours."

My own game design started from a rules standpoint. Waaaaaay back in 3rd edition (when Dakka was still on ezboard) I had one goal: to create an initiative-based activation system for 40K. I'd played a little bit of Clan War, and the game had a system where each player rolled a die for every unit, added some modifiers for each unit's commander, and then activated each unit in order. It was... slow, but I loved the idea that both players were actively involved with the game at all times. I've never liked 40K's "I do lots of things, and then sit around while you do lots of things" system.

Upon further review, though, and a few test games with such a system, it was decided that 40K just didn't work that way, largely because it doubled the amount of melee combat. The game wasn't balanced (well, was balanced even worse than usual), so I decided to begin work on a rules system of my own that eventually turned into a published game, with a printed rulebook and everything.

Could I have just used another system? Perhaps, but at the time I started the internet's gaming community was still largely rudimentary. Listservs were the major form of communication, so it was kind of difficult to find different games (to say nothing of the difficulty of finding *free* games, or being able to try one out). It was just easier to begin work on my own rules, and once I'd put some work into them I loved where they were going and designed some (optional) fluff to fit the way the rules were being developed. Now, I just want to get it updated to a 2nd edition so it can be one of those free alternatives that people can look at first when they need rules for their fluff (or when they want to fight their Warmachine armies vs. their 40k armies).

Hi Eilif.
I think it important to focus on GAME play.
If you first define the type of game you want to end up with, you can make sure the rules are the most suitable , arriving at well defined elegant and intuitive rules set.

Eg
There is a clear divide between ancient and modern land warfare.(Pre WWI and Post WWI)
In Ancient warfare a large body of troops in massed ranks is a scary sight,the same body of troops in massed ranks is just a target rich environment in modern warfare!

Also the number of elements under each players control is an important factor in determining the level of detailed interaction.
Rule of thumb,
Less than 3 , hyper detailed.
Less than a half dozen, very detailed.
Less than a dozen , detailed,
Over 2 dozen , limited detail.
Over 4 dozen , very simple.

Eg if the rules focus on individual models and the game has up to 150 models a side the interaction HAS to be made very simple to allow fast game play.
However,if models are grouped into units , and the game focuses on UNIT interactions , and each player has less than a dozen units ,This allows far more complexity in the interactions.

Anyone can get creative on the background , to up the cool factor.As asthetics are purley subjective.

But to arrive at an enjoyable and playable game , its important to be objective about the functionality of the game mechanics.

If the elements of the game interact as the players expect the rule set is intuitive.(Blod Bowl is a prime example.)

If the elements of the game do not interact as the players expect , the rule set is counter intuiitive.(40k is a prime of this.)

What sort of rule set are you thinking of writing?

I agree with your main point completely Elif. One of the examples you give, tommorow's war is the most magnificent set of rules i have ever read. Streamlined, meticulous and simultaneously realistic and cunningly abstracted. I could never hope to write anything as good. The 'exemplar' fluff they give however, though surprsingly good (and really just a nice bonus), is not superb and it is something i actually feel i could do better. I do however think it is an exception rather than a rule.

Look at the current big dogs in wargaming, WH40k, Warmahordes and Inifinity they are sold on Fluff (DoW/BL's success kinda proves this), fluff/models and purely models respectively. Warmahordes may be a slight exception as it the 'gamer's game' of the three. Its also not at all surprising that both WH40K and Warmahordes both have roots in roleplaying, doesnt take a genius.

I think if you want to sell your rules to someone to playtest you should really have a clear setting/story in mind.

Here is how I go about creating games to play:

I think a lot about the style of game I want to play. This naturally infomrs the mechanics of the game and creates a design ethos for the rest of the game.

Examples:
1. Water based navy fleet game
2. Skirmish game for sci-fi at 20mm
3. Ground-based Mecha game using existing Mecha lines

Typically, at this stage i will then do a lot of research into what is out there and how it works. From seeing how others have tackled the problems of game design, I get ideas of how I want to tackle them.

Then, I start crafting the rules. I typically start with the turn sequence, then the mechanics to fill the turn sequence. Sometimes this includes command or initiative seqeuences, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the game and turn sequence involved.

Once I have the basics of game play, then I start to create the background of the universe in depth. I may have touched on it during stage 1, but here is where I flesh it out.

Then, I put together units, armories, play lists etc. as needed based on the background.

Once these key parts in in place, then I think about the fun add-ons like scenarios, campaign play, custom builds, niche forces, etc.