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.

Lots of gamers want to create their own rulesets. Often, these end up being clones of 40k or some other game. Many times a person lays out their goals for a game, and their initial rules and I can't help but think:
"this has already been done, and much better by ______ ruleset".
Ideally a person would be familiar with many rulesets, so my question is this:

What 4-5 sets of rules should aspiring miniature game designers read and why?

If possible also include the kind of game the hypothetical designer wants to make. Feel free to be as specific or general as you want.

Example:
Designer of a 28mm Sci-Fi Ground Combat game should read:
-Current edition 40k. For better or worse, it's the standard by which other sci-fi Games will be judged
-Tomorrow's War. Not a great layout, but a good example of a "hard-sci-fi" game based around scenario play (no included points system) and a "reaction" mechanic (not igougo).
-Song of Blades and Heroes. Not a sci-fi game, but an excellent example of wargaming at it's simplest and another unique activation system.
-Infinity: The reigning king of sci-fi warband skirmish.

I think that any rules designer should read the rules for games like Magic, or Starfleet battles, or similar games which have had 101 iterations to make sure that every little detail is covered, and that unclear writing is eliminiated.

However, they also need to be sure that their rules are still "fun" too, which overly legalistic rules can reduce.

Suggestions in genre: StarGrunt II, 5150

Also useful: Warmaster (command rules), Saga, The Sword and the Flame

D&D 3rd and 4th edition have a significant miniatures aspect to the combat systems, and are widely-known.

Really, to create a good game, you can't just look at the contemporaries. You need to understand the basics as well. Start with really simple stuff, and work your way up.

And I mean really simple. Figure out what makes games like clue, scrabble, monopoly, and others interesting, and you'll have an easier time developing systems that make more involved games interesting as well. You can develop a magnum opus of deep and complex systems, but if it doesn't contain any fun, no one will care.

I'm not sure whether you should "read" ruleset instead I feel you should play them. It's also probably worthwhile reading outside genre. I like a lot of aspects of Flames of War and would like to see a similiar Sci-Fi ruleset.

I agree with lasgunpacker that a wider range of reading is vital, rather than just minis wargames.

Yes, absolutely, to the rules-sets that have evolved over years or decades, not just through playtesting but through release into the wild, and actual play.

Also, though, it's vital to check out games that are regarded as excellent games in their own right, whatever the genre they come in, because there will be solid lessons in game design from them:

The best of the Eurogames are amazing for elegance of design, for the near-perfect integration of casual and competitive play, and for game mechanics rarely seen in UK/US designs (auctions, trading, etc.). So, Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico, even simple stuff like Carcassonne.

The best-regarded of the more US/UK wargame-root games are clearly worth a look, too. By wargame-root I mean games that can trace their ancestry, one way or another, to stuff like Risk, Gettysburg, Chainmail/D&D, Diplomacy, Avalon Hill's board wargames, Ogre/GEV, etc. So Wiz-War, Axis & Allies, and D&D itself (in various iterations) would be well worth a look. Even just looking at "Risk Variants" -- Shogun, Star Wars Risk (both versions), Risk: Black Ops/Risk Revised, Risk Legacy, Kasl, etc. -- can lead to some real insights into the hubris of (for example) wanting to do "40K, only good", just because so many generations of game designers have tried to "fix" Risk.

Also kind of derived from those roots, sometimes with Eurogame influence too, are the well-regarded asymmetrically balanced board wargames: notably Cosmic Encounter, Dune, and Chaos in the Old World. These are especially good for minis game designers because almost all minis games will need asymmetric balance, which as we know from GW's games, is at best rather tricky to get right.

Plus I guess you have to look at some of Sirlin's faves like Street Fighter 2 (and sequels), Super Smash Bros, and his own non-digital take on the genre, Yomi, just to really fine-tune that asymmetric balance sense when it comes to a pure combat game...

40k
Warmahordes
Heroclix
Battletech
Starcraft 2

If you know and understand the competitive and design environments for these five games you'll be pretty well set to create anything similarly themed in the future. Each was blindingly popular for a time and for good reason. Each is very different from the other but with some crossed elements.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Starcraft 2

I was going to suggest this. It's good to know since it doesn't rely on luck very much and is mostly just straight numbers hitting each other. It's also good to reference for pacing, since it's very, very fast. Even though it isn't a tabletop game, it's good to be familiar with.

Brother SRM wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Starcraft 2

I was going to suggest this. It's good to know since it doesn't rely on luck very much and is mostly just straight numbers hitting each other. It's also good to reference for pacing, since it's very, very fast. Even though it isn't a tabletop game, it's good to be familiar with.

It also teaches you about balancing through maps and formats and the distorting effect that a metagame can have on the perceived valuation of individual units. It's also a good warning in overbalancing and the serious differentiations between casual metagames and competitive ones. It's valuable stuff!

A very good discussion! Everyone should be knowledgeable about the contemporaries, the classics and the standards in any genre they are writing about.

Little Wars (1913, H G Wells) is regarded as the first modern war game. In the same way that fantasy writers should read Tolkien, wargames writers should probably read Little Wars.

Malifaux and Infinity both seem to have experienced quick rises to fame: find out what they are doing right.
It also might be good to look at some of the new games being developed by Rick Priestly, Alessio Cavatore etc, to see where they themselves went after 40k/Fantasy.

In terms of non-wargames, as above, check out D+D, Magic, Starcraft, Risk, Catan... I'd like to add Counter Strike to that list. That might seem a little odd, but CS was one of the most popular games in the world and was played extremely well cooperatively over the internet... they must have done something right. All of these games also had their 'XXX killer' released (many times over) and survived... what did these games do right that their intended successors forgot? World of Warcraft is interesting in that the developers are constantly explaining and justifying their game balance decisions to a large and vocal user base - with a reasonably open mind you can follow the discussion and see how the game has evolved and what they were doing wrong at each stage.

I'll also throw in a shameless plug for two of my favourite games, Battlefleet Gothic and Dust Tactics. BFG was abandoned by GW a fair while ago yet still maintains a small but dedicated user base. Dust Tactics/Warfare I believe is written by Andy Chambers (or one of the ex-GW people) and manages to combine board-game simplicity with wargame aesthetics and tactics.

I think it comes down to the same thing about normal book authors: the best authors read a lot.

1. Straight numbers fests and probabilities. Warmachine, 40k, etc.

2. Command based systems. The only one that comes to mind
is Warmaster, but I'm sure it's based on something else.

3. Games with opposed skill checks. Infinity comes to mind.

These are just the dice games, otherwise I would include Malifaux.

40k(always gotta look at what's on top)

Warmahordes/Heroclix (same concepts)

AT-43(a lot of the rules make real world sense)

6-8th ed Fantasy(to see a failed progression)

Uncharted Seas(simple to play, hard to master)

I'll add in Warzone 1st edition. It came along at the same time as 40k 2nd ed and was really challenging it in our area. All the rules are available here:

http://www.mutantpedia.com/eng/Warzone.html

Personally? I'd say the following 8 actually.

WH40k/Fantasy: They're the big ones obviously, should know these if for no other reason that #1 market share.

OGRE/GEV: A very old ruleset, but very simple, extremely easy to pick up and play, you can pick up the basic OGRE game, learn the rules and play through a game in just over an hour, and build highly complex forces/missions/battles from there.

Flames of War: missions aside, rules are rather simple and elegant, excellent mechanics for differentiating forces that otherwise may be identical in other game systems (e.g. mid 20th century humans with near identical tech levels differentiated primarily by doctrine, training and experience).

Heavy Gear: An interesting ruleset that manages to be rather simple yet encompass a good amount of variety and works very well as anything from a skirmish to a platoon scale game. Large variety of unit actions, interesting damage inflicting mechanics, etc. Big robots are also cool.

Infinity: Similar to heavy gear except probably the most capable skirmish set rules out there with a huge array of potential model/unit actions capable of doing everything from stabbing people to hacking guided missiles out of the air and everything in between.

Warmahordes: An aggressive and popular ruleset that is large enough that a designer should be familiar with it.

Battletech: Perhaps an overcomplicated rules system that rapidly becomes tedious with more than a handful of units in play, but very detailed and highly capable for small scale combat between massive war machines, and has a rather "historical" value in terms of wargaming.

Distopian Wars/Firestorm Armada: very similar rulesets, works well for ship/tank/plane based combat, simple rules, encompasses a lot of interesting stuff. If you're looking for a way to utilize exploding 6's well, this is probably the best system for it.

I'd recommend second edition Warzone over the first. The first had alot of mechanics that caused the game to slow and break down (Parrying for example).

I would say that first and foremost, you need to decide WHAT your game's goal is. Is it going to a be B&P game like 40k or Battletech or is it going to be a hard simulation like ASL/SFB or is it going to be pure strategy like Chess and Go? Depending on what your design goal depends on what you should look for.

I agree with 12thRonin.

There is not much point studying the rules for an SF skirmish game if you are trying to make a strategic level 30 Years War game.

You need to get at least the basics about the game scale and play style in mind, then look at games that are similar.

That's not to say there aren't similar rules from very different games. Both Marechal de l'Empire (corps level Napoleonic) and Cyberpunk (near SF RPG) use a fairly similar opposition of dice rolls mechanism for most combat resolution.

However if you are going to read 4-5 rules it would be better to stick to sets of at least the same scale.

All of them. As many as you can stand, and then 2 or 3 more. Study failed games, successful, everything you can get your hands on. at the Bare minimum, you'd have to study 40k and Fantasy, WarmaHordes, Magic: The Gathering, D&D 2-4, Clix, the old Star Wars card game by Decipher.

Then go out and find more.

This is the same advice King gave about writing, if you want to write you have to read.

There have been some great suggestions above, but can I just throw in the card for...

BLOOD BOWL

Not because it's the most complex/tactical ruleset, but precisely the opposite - it's fast and very fun and, by wargame standards, ridiculously simple. Rarely does anyone ever have to check the rulebook during a game. Yet it still offers the right amount of variation to have lots of varied teams with lots of varied games.

Every Tabletop Game Designer should read HG Wells' "Little Wars", the Prime Ancestor to everything on the market, today. Including D&D, since D&D arose out of "Chainmail", which was...a tabletop miniatures wargame.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3691/3691-h/3691-h.htm

Enjoy!

--B.

Nobody said Kings of War. Clearly this is about popularity and not quality.

I think 4-5 is everything but enough and I second the thought of my fellow posters. You need to understand the mechanics of different games, not just Wargames. Here is my list.

- Warhammer 40k 2nd. edition directly followed by Warhammer 40k 3rd edition

Understanding the true reasons for the transition is perhaps what differentiates the fanboy from the designer and the designer from the succesfull.

- H.G. Wells little Wars

This should be the starting point for understanding Wargames in general

- Chess

Not just the rules, but perhaps at least one book about opening games, one game of famous games, and one book about basics including the endgame

- Kings of War

A MUST read concerning balance and elegance.

- Epic Ruleset

Perhaps the best ruleset ever created for a Wargame

- Operation World War 2 2nd edition

This is as far as realism goes. It teaches that realism should never take the dominant part, rather than fun.

- Settlers of Catan

This is what you should reach for

- Battletech Classic

A must read for Innovation

- Monopoly, Epidemy, Risk, Carcassone, Dominion

Simply good games, giving you a good feeling for elegant rulesets. Also timeless. A perfect ruleset doesn't need another edition!!!!

- Starcraft 2

They hired mathematics to balance the game.

I don't know who you are, Max Jet, but I LIKE you. BFF?

Great post, Max Jet, except for the mention of Monopoly. That's a great example of how not to make a good game!

For me, they key characteristic of a good game is simplicity. This is comparable with good writing, where the ability to express a concept briefly shows more talent than the ability to write pages.

It's relatively easy to churn out pages of rules to cover every eventuality. It's much harder to work out which concepts can be combined into one, whilst retaining the flavour of the game. Axis & Allies is probably a good example of this balance.

And, whilst his name might be mud in certain parts, Jervis Johnson writes well on game design in White Dwarf.

My five, off the top of my head, which I reserve the right to change at any point:

Go - to learn how simplicity can generate complexity
Settlers of Catan - to learn how much a truly innovative mechanic can bring to a game
40K - to learn about bringing a game alive through imaginative story-telling
A&A - for the reason above
Poker - to learn about strategies that rise above the maths

You could do worse than get hold of a copy of 100 Best Hobby Games, just as a starting point.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hobby-Games-The-100-Best/dp/1932442960/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336080584&sr=1-1

Stargrunt. It actually has psychology that means something! Also the opposing dice rolls system allows for a much wider range of possible outcomes than sticking with d6 only.

Great stuff guys. I hadn't thought about board games when I created this topic.

Very interesting that many of you gravitated towards being more widely read (beyond the specific genre one wanted to write) and to understand some of the wider philosophies behind games beyond simple mechanics.

I'm unconvinced that Wargame players need a more than basic knowlege of chess and other traditional boardgames, but I definitely see the beneift of understanding what makes games fun to play.

To the list, I'd add

-Future War Commander or Blitzkrieg commander. They are both based on GW's Warmaster, and are excellent examples of how a successful and effective game mechanic (Warmaster's command system) can be ported to other genres.

-Hordes of The Things and/or DBA. I recently picked up HoTT and am trying to understand this, one of the most popular of the old-school fantasy games. I think I will have to play it before I understand it, but it's very different from anything else I've ever played.

Eilif wrote:
I'm unconvinced that Wargame players need a more than basic knowlege of chess and other traditional boardgames, but I definitely see the beneift of understanding what makes games fun to play.

You may be right, but I think you can learn important points more quickly in basic games.

So, for example, a game needs to generate a pressure to act - a source of tension where a player has to choose between different courses of action.

Take Risk, for example. It's a very simple game. The pressure to act is generated by the card system. If you don't collect cards, you'll eventually lose. This stops a stalemate arising. You can see this clearly in the game mechanics.

In chess, it's more basic. You have to move one piece per turn.

In 40K, on the other hand, this tension is generated by unbalanced armies, a fixed turn limit and objectives (plus other sources, presumably).

So, playing the simple games gives you an idea of concepts that are important to all games. And the simplicity makes these points much more visible.