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.

Ok so as a games designer I was wondering but apart from the obvious stuff like a tight and clear rule set, what do you think makes a good rule or a good ruleset?

Do you like your rules complex? or simple?

Do you like your you rules to reflect the fluff of the background to the game? or do you just like rules to use the models?

Do you like your games to be combo-heavy? or do you like using a force that has different roles to fulfil within your army?

What type of games do you prefer and enjoy the most? Skirmish? Wargame? Historical's? (or maybe Historical's with a twist?) Small Scale or Large scale battles?

Also what Genre do you most enjoy? Pulp? Sci-fi? Fantasy?

And what do you like in your background? do you like a dark gritty setting? or do you like a more modern twist?

Just wondering on what the community thinks and likes to get a full idea on what people like, as im currently making a Sci-fi Skirmish and a fantasy Steampunk Wargame.

Cheers to all comments

Brevity, flexibility and lack of ambiguity, everything else is just icing.

 azreal13 wrote:
Brevity, flexibility and lack of ambiguity, everything else is just icing.

This.

I'm also a fan of sci-fi spaceship combat games.

Clarity , brevity and elegance.
If its good enough for RP, its good enough for me!

I like coherent inclusive rules, that deliver the complexity of the intended game play with the minimum of complication in the rules.

I am happy with any game that delivers engaging game play with a minimum of fuss. Scale and scope is secondary to the game play IMO.

The background setting should not dictate the rules, IMO, but the rules should be written for the intended game play. And the game play is influenced by the setting of the game.

I think that a good ruleset needs these things:

1- simple to learn, difficult to master- you need rules that you can ideally pick up in less than an hour and that can be taught easily, and yet also rules that are complex enough that a good deal of thought and skill is needed to get the most out of them.

2- Degrees of complexity- while not essential, it's nice to have 'basic' and 'advanced' rules, so you can learn it a bit at a time. Basic should be things like moving, shooting, fighting, advanced should cover things like leadership, interaction with terrain/map and additional special rules for various things.

3- Interaction- This is the most important for me. I play a game to take part in a narrative, and a good ruleset should allow me to really 'feel' part of the game. I think this is done best with things that the player has direct control over, leaving nothing to chance, like having cards that can ensure an otherwise dice-controlled action happens. Adds another level of skill, but does not require a great deal of difficulty to inset into a ruleset.

Unlike some comments above, I like rulesets that are determined by the background of the game, largely as another facet of point 3. I like to feel that a game really is taking place in the setting (it is the setting that draws me into a game in the first place) so anything that works towards that is something I'd enjoy.

Fantastic contributions so far keep 'em coming

And so I will add in my own preference's:

1) Emergence: as people have said I like a game that makes me feel part of the setting whilst I play the game every step of the way.

2) Easy to learn but hard to master: I want people using their minds to win, I don't like games where my opponent did not need to think about his/her tactics because "they had rules" which means it's was an auto win, for said player since the start, I want people to think like about how their leaders would combat the scenario they are in, not just sit back and with a wine glass dancing to the Harlem shake in a Jacuzzi knowing that "they got this".

3) Interaction/Inclusion: I want a game where I feel that the time fly's by, and for me being constantly included helps me with this and also with my concentration of the game, I personally like a rule where I do not have to wait too long for my opponent to make his turn, so rules such as alternating phase sequences such as your opponent moves his units first then you move you units next as an example, helps me with having fun and making me concentrate with the game more often.

I personally like most types of genres of games, but I do have my soft spot for anything Steampunk

As a game designer, your job is to deliver what the client wants (and needs).

The rules should reflect the background your client wants (his vision of how the game will be played essentially) and the clearer, tighter and streamlined the rules are the better it reflects on your resume and the happier will your client be for minimal rules support needed for the game.

Theme, scope, fluff, complexity are entirely dictated by your clients needs.

 happygolucky wrote:
Ok so as a games designer I was wondering but apart from the obvious stuff like a tight and clear rule set, what do you think makes a good rule or a good ruleset?

Do you like your rules complex? or simple?

Simple

 happygolucky wrote:

Do you like your you rules to reflect the fluff of the background to the game? or do you just like rules to use the models?

Hmm, I prefer if the background and the rules connect a little; but it doesn't have to be all the time as ultimately I want to be able to use the models.

 happygolucky wrote:


Do you like your games to be combo-heavy? or do you like using a force that has different roles to fulfil within your army?

If I wanted Combos I would play Street Fighter II: Turbo.

 happygolucky wrote:

What type of games do you prefer and enjoy the most? Skirmish? Wargame? Historical's? (or maybe Historical's with a twist?) Small Scale or Large scale battles?

I prefer skirmish as the number of models doesn't get excessive, I can finish in a resonable time; and I can follow along with one or two "characters" in the game world.

 happygolucky wrote:

Also what Genre do you most enjoy? Pulp? Sci-fi? Fantasy?

Genre doesn't matter to me two much, but I'm not a huge fan of Fantasy. The rest are fair game!

Just wondering on what the community thinks and likes to get a full idea on what people like, as im currently making a Sci-fi Skirmish and a fantasy Steampunk Wargame.

Cheers to all comments

My favourite ruleset is Epic: Armageddon, and I think examining Epic is a good way of explaining what I personally like.

Complexity
Epic: 40,000 was slightly too abstract, while 2nd ed. Epic was too detailed. Armageddon strikes a point between the two, where every model or stand is doing something I, as a player, can identify. Those actions are relatively similar across an army, however, so I and other players don't have to peer too closely at the models to check what's going on.

Shared stats
The stats are simple and intuitive enough within an army that the stats you need to know can be memorised in two or three games, assuming you stick with the same list. For example, infantry share the same basic stats, with exceptions that define their role:
Tactical marines have 4+ armour, 4+ FF and 4+ CC. Assault marines have 4+ armour, 5+ FF and 3+ CC; while Devastators have 4+ armour, 3+ FF and 5+ CC. Easy to remember, and intuitive.

Clear, brief basic rules
I like rules that don't get in the way of the game. The basic rules are simple but allow for a great deal of complexity.

Model driven
The game keeps the average gamer in mind. The game is designed for a 6 x 4' battlefield, so it'll fit in a house. Weapon ranges fit within that. Measurements rarely go below 5cm, and you're encouraged to err on the side of generosity for templates. This reduces the discussion and arguments over tiny measurements and minimises problems like the table being knocked. Moving your models to certain positions gives you advantages and disadvantages, rather than off-table stuff like cards and dice rolls.

Visuals
Too many otherwise good games forget this; with endless dice rolls about stuff that's not easily represented or reflected on the table, so the board gets cluttered with notes and tokens and markers. In Epic: Armageddon, the tokens (blast markers) add to the visual impact of the game in a natural and fun way that's instantly recognisable. A passer-by, with no idea of the game, will instantly know that a formation covered in blast markers is being shot at – and probably in trouble!

Shared rules
Vehicles, infantry and bigger war engines and spaceships share a single ruleset and set of statistics, so I don't need to learn a whole new subset of rules to have intereactions between aircraft or giant robots and my infantry.