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 got a hankering for some system designing, but I'm not really sure where to start. So, I guess I'll ask the forum at large-what are the essential components of a wargame?

If you're starting from a blank slate I'd say the the most essential thing you need is a theme. By theme I am referring to what era of history or what sci fi/fantasy themes will the game try to represent on the tabletop. Another thing you need to decide on is what sort of warfare you want to cover, the vast majority of games are land warfare but there is also naval warfare and from WW1 onwards aerial warfare to consider amongst others. Once you've got a theme nailed down that should start to guide your thinking.

So assuming you've got a theme sorted I'd say the next thing you need to look at is the size of the conflict. This is where words like skirmish, warband, platoon, company, mass battle and similar terms can be thrown around. Do you want to play with a handful of individual miniatures, field vast armies of multibased miniatures or go for something in between? You also need to seriously consider miniature scale as that can effect how you approach rules design (for example true line of sight and 2mm scale are probably not a good combination).

Once you've got this far in conceptualising the game you're probably starting to get some ideas for how you want things to work but if you're going to base it on a historical era I suggest doing as much research as you can. Whilst games don't have to be a perfect simulation of the era you should in my opinion at least aim to get the feel of the era correct. This research should also help form an idea in your head of how the game will play on the tabletop. Of course research is equally useful for science fiction and fantasy games as it can help shape the combat style of your fictional universe.

The next thing I would do is write a list of goals setting out what you want to achieve with your design.

Got all that done? Good now you're ready to start really thinking about the game design. The first thing I would suggest working on is the core mechanics that will drive the game. To start with you'll really want to sort out the absolute basics. Like what to use for randomisation; dice, cards, dominoes or something else. That's assuming you even want randomisation, a deterministic approach is equally valid. Moving further ahead you need to work out the likes of basic movement, combat and morale systems. What I mean by basic system is just that, the bare minimum of rules you would need to throw some miniatures on a bare table and play a game. At this point all you'll really have is the skeleton of the game to build on. The next step is so put some flesh on those bones and now is when you can start thinking about things like how terrain affects the game, special rules for individual units that sort of thing. I'd say that the last things you need to work on are army lists (assuming you want any) and scenarios. Of course I'm glossing over a lot of detail here but I hope my opinion has been useful.

One final piece of advice, play test as often as you can. Ideally get some friends to play the game and watch how they play as they might find all sorts of issues that you simply didn't notice.

Oh and make sure to have fun while designing.

The first thing you need to ask is this: is your project a commercial release or a fun project?

Second is you design for your own IP or an established IP

Third is are you going to use others miniature line or create your own miniature line for it.

Nick has the right of it mostly. Also get as many eyes on it as possible.

The only other thing I'd add is to be prepared to abandon concepts. I once made a pretty decent Transformers game, even had some minis and the whole system fell down when we tried to expand it. We had this battletech style damage system where a bot could have an arm or leg blown off. Worked just fine, right up until we tried to do the Dinobots.

Designing a wargame can be fun at the beginning.

As a current designer for a science fiction wargame, I have to say that designing wargames can be difficult. Not insanely difficult, but difficult to the point where you have to nitpick what you wrote earlier, having to piece together your ideas, and wonder why you came across the concept(s) and/or mechanics.

The guys who wrote earlier before me are 100% accurate in the area of wargame design. You need to flesh out a theme, a genre, your supplied ideas of "factions", your initial drawings of minis (if you're planning on selling the wargame as your own IP), and playtesting the initial game, hoping to warp it into something far better than its initial stages. Trust me, killing your "little darlings" hurt very badly but if you learn how to separate useful ideas (that you can't implement right away) with those that are perfect in place, you'll find that your useful ideas could be used somewhere else, perhaps in an expansion for your wargame helping to solidfy the rules.

You need to come up with mechanics that actually resemble the flavor and feel for the game. If you do clunky mechanics that have no bearing, no resemblance of the 'universe' that you've created, players are going to wonder why you even included the mechanics in the first place. Worst, it could bog down the game. Take for example a mechanic where I came up with a success die roll. If you roll a 6, you could successfully roll again one more die. If you roll more sixes, you may roll more dice. This sounds like a neat little mechanic, but could be severely abused by some players. Some people have pointed out that they have had crappy luck with the dice and wouldn't want a mechanic like this in place. However, the story goes with the mechanic that it depended on the pilot's skill and how he would actually successfully hit an enemy tank; it still didn't jibe with the people, who thought there had to be better mechanics in place. Imagine a player having some incredibly lucky rolls and had seven sixes, successfully taking out an enemy tank without ever having to receive a glancing or penetrating shot across the bow. I had to set aside this mechanic but at some point, I may implement this mechanic to see if it would be worth having.

As for your rules, you need to develop the basic rules. You don't need to fill in huge, huge details about your world(s), faction(s), and/or how melee/combat/long-range, etc., works. You just need to make sure to get some of the nitty gritty stuff down, and go from there. Don't just expect yourself to create the best rulebook on the market because frankly, no rulebook is ever godly, legendary, demigod-status. Your rulebook will be crappy, a disjointed mess, and totally a blight to read. That's how it's formed. Once you've got the mechanics, how the game is played, and what you do in order to win on the battlefield, then you can start resolving some of the problems with your mechanics by playtesting.

You don't have to playtest with actual miniatures you build. You could just grab coins, superglue them to paper, draw directional markers, azimuth, firing arc, or whatever suits your fancy. Name them names, draw up some stat cards with stuff you think is worth playing with, and see if your concept works. Play with those and try to understand your rules. See if the playtest actually makes your rules more understandable, more fun to play with. if not, then tinker with the mechanics, improve it, or add new ones, and subtract the old ones.

Eventually, you will have a workable wargame that may sell well or flop. Be aware that your first wargame design will not bring you the millions and billions that you may want (if that's what you want) but it is a design that you, as the designer, have undertaken to understand how to best create a wargame. With that experience alone, you eventually will understand how to build a wargame better. Maybe your concept, the theme & genre, all were wonderful ideas but your usage of the mechanics is terrible. So instead of dumping it, put it to the backburner, design a new wargame, and who knows? if you do find a workable mechanics that could have worked for your first game, plug it back in and play more of it. See if it actually works. If it works, you have found something that improves the overall design of the game.

Oversimplication of the game is overrated but a complex, dfificult to play game is something most people don't want. They want something balanced, fast, and works well with clear to understand rules. Before you design a wargame, why don't you use your $$$ and buy a few wargame rulebooks, examine the design in detail, and try out the game yourself. See what it would take you to play the game and ask yourself the most important questions regarding a specific rulebook:

1) What made me buy this wargame book in the first place?
2) Why did I like this wargame book?
3) What did i find interesting about this game?
4) What did I find boring about this game?
5) If I were the designer of this rulebook, what would I have done to improve the flow of the game? Or detract from the game in order to either simplify or complexify the game?
6) What makes this rulebook worth buying?
7) How much of a replay value does this rulebook get? How accessible were the minis in regards to the rules in the book?
8) What were the mechanics used in this book? How would I rate the mechanics from 1 to 10 (from super-easy to difficult)?
9) How many different models did this wargame book include?
10) What was easy to understand about this book? What are the most difficult parts of the book to read?

And more... Do not buy rulebooks that doesn't grab your interest. Buy those that do. The reason for this is because if you buy rulebooks that have zero interest from you, you're the least likely to want to design your wargame. You want something that will grab your attention. Sure, there are sucky rulebooks out there but there are far better ones out there that haven't received widespread attention yet, at least not in the GW scale. The worst thing you could find in a rulebook are rules that don't make sense, have weak fluff, and/or aren't well thought out. The odds of that happening is small but it does happen.

Good luck on your wargame design.

I'm not looking to make anything commercial-just a Wargame for fun. But thank you all for your advice.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm not looking to make anything commercial just a Wargame for fun. But thank you all for your advice.

No problem. Hope you have fun designing it and seeing it grow. If it turns out to be such a fun game with your friends, maybe one day you might decide approaching it commercially. However, I do understand how this system you are aiming to design is for fun.

Also, if you really are into designing a wargame, be prepared to take months and months of figuring out the rules, the factions, etc. It won't be just a week or so. It will take a long time for it to proto-form, gestate into something living, and eventually becoming something that you may or may not have expected.

I, myself, am designing it for fun and to use as my first product range for a future miniature company if it ever comes around to that. Nonetheless, it's good to know that you want to design one for fun!

Designing for fun is fine, have you decided on the other two steps?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Designing for fun is fine, have you decided on the other two steps?

I think the answer to those are no.

My guess is that OP might buy a 3D printer and make his own minis, use it for the game, and not sell it as a whole. After all, he's not really interested in developing an iP, producing a miniatures product line, and building a company around it. However, that 3D printer idea... Yeah, I can see him and friends designing minis all day on Blender, 3dsMax, or other 3D software and then building those minis...

GW was feeling so threatened that year when the first 3D printers came out.

At the cost we have now for sculpting and small run production a dedicated designer can for fun make a pretty decent prototype with their own IP and miniatures so the question has validity.

Despite the above, one can theoretically use other companies miniatures for their own IP game or make a game that is based on another companies IP and miniatures assuming they do it for fun and not for profit, the first is not that problematic legally, the second is.

If you are writing a war game.
Its quite important to decide what type of warfare you want to represent.Simple simulations make the best war games.

Also define the scale and the scope of the game .And stick to it throughout the game design.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Despite the above, one can theoretically use other companies miniatures for their own IP game or make a game that is based on another companies IP and miniatures assuming they do it for fun and not for profit, the first is not that problematic legally, the second is.

Theoretically, you could play with the other companies' miniatures without ever selling the miniatures as if they were your own. Self-owned miniatures used to play or test out the wargame system has never been a grey area, neither a violation of copyrights. It can be done. One must err on the caution of selling a wargame system, especially if it's heavily dependent on one company's miniatures. But a fully fluid, no-specific-minis-required wargame system that you can use another company's miniatures, that would not be a problem. Take for example the Osprey series on Wargaming. They have tons of wargame books, but none of their wargames specifically state that you must buy X minis, not Y minis, but get Z minis for special types, etc. You can buy any minis you'd like and just plop them down for wargaming skirmish-scale warfare.

Secondly, legally, it can be a problem. The only way for the designer to get away with W40K designs is to design his own miniature that bears no close resemblance to GW. Onslaught Minis made Okami Combine, which was sort-of like the Tau, except it is indeed "Space Samurais" with different names. The shapes are almost the same but nonetheless are not entirely identical. Onslaught also has named their troops, units, APCs, tanks, etc. The CSM could be compared to Hellborn on their site, which does sort of look like CSM.

Onslaught can't be sued for that because they weren't using GW's names of known and popular units. They also can't be sued for "similar" designs, unless they specifically designed a unit with the same shapes, lines, and textures that GW minis can be found on. This is also one of the moves that GW is making: creating new products with different names and protecting them. It makes it easier to aggressively protect their IP rights.

Personally, if I were to design minis, why not design original miniatures? After all, original miniatures are out there. They provide a framework for how artists see their miniatures, how these miniatures were shaped, etc. TBH, I'd love to use the Onslaught Okami Combine miniatures for 6mm Epic 40K gameplay but personally, I prefer the real Tau 6mm units that I can use; sadly, GW did not put out the Tau armies for Epic 40k when it came out and just before it was on life support. So far, I know of only three armies supported by the game: Space Marines, Orks, Imperial Guard. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's quite lacking...

I am not exactly a lawyer but I can see how, legally, if reproducing a company's miniatures can be a huge legal hassle. It's quite the same as trying to build a mod for Star Wars, discussing it for a while online on a forum, then having a LucasArts lawyer slap a cease-and-desist order in person to all the modders involved. Even if there were no profits being made, cease-and-desist orders were made. Evrer heard about Damnatus, a German W40K movie? GW couldn't do anything to the movie in Germany because film laws are protected. They did apply pressure somehow and mysteriously, the movie have largely disappeared from the Internet.

EDIT: The "apply pressure somehow and mysteriously, the movie have largely disappeared from the Internet" was from a memory recall dating back to 2000s. Now, Damnatus can be found on YouTube with English subtitles... My bad.

So, question-which seems more intuitive?

High stats are good, rolling low is good

-or-

Low stats are good, rolling high is good

Speaking personally I prefer rolling high good, rolling low bad. How you integrate that into a game is another matter entirely. The two predominant approaches seem to be the KoW style here's the target number (ie lower stat is better) or WHFB/40k style of here's a look up table (ie higher stat is better). Both work reasonably well however I would say that the WHFB/40k approach is clunkier and can slow the game down.

Another option that could work for a skirmish level game is the approach used by games like Tomorrow's War. In that game there is a universal target of 4+ (I think been a while since I read it) and different qualities of unit get different dice to roll, So regular troops might get a D6 while elite troops get a D8 or something like that. It might be an option you want to consider.

Ultimately the best thing I can recommend is keeping the dice rolling mechanics and the stats consistent. Choose one approach and stick to it. Don't change the way you roll dice unless you have a very good reason to do so.

Enemy target number is also a valid approach

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I guess I'll ask the forum at large-what are the essential components of a wargame?

There need to be some rules for some kind of battle happening. Your starting point is hopelessly vague, you need to narrow down the genre/scale/etc before you can say anything useful.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, question-which seems more intuitive?

High stats are good, rolling low is good

-or-

Low stats are good, rolling high is good

Neither, because there's no context for this question. The answer depends entirely on what you're doing with the stats and dice.

If you are looking for ease of accessibility, high ratings and rolls should be generally "good". Otherwise, it may become somewhat counter intuitive.

I ran into this situation when units had to roll under the ratings on a dice to succeed. Trying to roll low was counter intuitive for new players, so I instead, I decided to treat the rating as a bonus to the roll with a target number, meaning both high ratings and high rolls are desirable. It adds some light addition, but players instantly grasp it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, question-which seems more intuitive?

High stats are good, rolling low is good

-or-

Low stats are good, rolling high is good

Neither of these! High stats are good, and high rolling is good.

 jmurph wrote:
If you are looking for ease of accessibility, high ratings and rolls should be generally "good". Otherwise, it may become somewhat counter intuitive.

I ran into this situation when units had to roll under the ratings on a dice to succeed. Trying to roll low was counter intuitive for new players, so I instead, I decided to treat the rating as a bonus to the roll with a target number, meaning both high ratings and high rolls are desirable. It adds some light addition, but players instantly grasp it.

Excellent advice!

I'm thinking that I want a d10 based system, with stats ranging from 1-10. The target number will be 11, in most cases (or all-preferably all, to keep it simple) so a stat of 1 succeeds on 10, a 10 succeeds on a 1 (always succeeds), and a 0 cannot succeed.

I also think I'd like each faction to focus on different things. One on mobility, one on shooting power, one on close combat, one on inter-unit buffs. And probably some others, but that seems like a good start for now.

Basic stats...

Melee Offense-How well you hit in close combat.
Melee Defense-How well you dodge in close combat.
Initiative-How fast you are
Ranged Skill-How well you shoot.
Evasion-How well you dodge bullets.
Movement-How fast you move.
Strength-How strong you are.
Toughness-How tough you are.
Bravery-How likely (or not) you are to crumple to fear.
Discipline-How likely you are to follow orders.

Melee would work pretty simply. D10+Melee Offense-Enemy's Melee Defense, final modifier cannot go below 1 (unless Melee Offense is already 0). Melee Defense will typically be lower than Offense, so people aren't always hitting on 10s.
Initiative determines the order you go in-10 goes before 9 before 8, etc. etc. Might apply universally-that is, all Initiative 10 people move, shoot, and do close combat before the 9 people go.
Ranged is pretty similar. D10+Ranged Skill-Evasion+Other Modifiers (cover and such), final modifier cannot go below 1 (unless Ranged Skill is already 0). Same thing-Evasion will typically be lower than Ranged Skill, so bullets will have an impact.
Movement will be measured in inches, and can go higher than 10.
Strength is mostly used in Close Combat (guns will have separate Strength values usually) and is compared to Toughness to determine how well you wound. D10+Strength compared to Toughness. If equal to or greater than, deal one wound. If double, deal two. If triple, deal three, etc. etc.
Bravery will cover morale tests.
Discipline will cover getting units to do what you want when opposed by certain things-for instance, let's say there are some enemy troops sitting on an objective, and a massive enemy war machine in the middle of the table. Units that are considered "Threatened" by the war machine would need to pass a discipline test to shoot at the troops instead of the war machine, since the war machine looks a lot scarier.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, question-which seems more intuitive?

High stats are good, rolling low is good
-or-
Low stats are good, rolling high is good

Neither of these! High stats are good, and high rolling is good.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

 JNAProductions wrote:

I'm thinking that I want a d10 based system, with stats ranging from 1-10.

What about the subject matter you are modelling leads you to this idea?

Basic stats...

Melee Offense-How well you hit in close combat.
Melee Defense-How well you dodge in close combat.
Initiative-How fast you are
Ranged Skill-How well you shoot.
Evasion-How well you dodge bullets.
Movement-How fast you move.
Strength-How strong you are.
Toughness-How tough you are.
Bravery-How likely (or not) you are to crumple to fear.
Discipline-How likely you are to follow orders.

I think you might be going about this backwards. You aren't really designing something here but taking a pretty standard RPG and wargame approach to stats and just sort of assuming it as the way forward. There's all sorts of assumptions you've baked into this already without any real consideration as to why or what you are trying to accomplish. Your starting point seems to be "the exact same as a million other RPGs and wargames but I get to name the stats and pick the numbers!"

But what are you trying to represent? What do you want the people at the table to do? What assumptions are you making without realizing it? How do you know if you're hitting your design goals if you haven't defined them? It's okay if your design goal is "the exact same as a million other RPGs and wargames but I get to name the stats and pick the numbers!" but just be sure about that before you get too far along.

What are you trying to represent?

What do you actually see the participants at the table doing?

What decisions will the participants make during play?

In what way will they be surprised? In what way will they find something familiar?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I guess I'll ask the forum at large-what are the essential components of a wargame?

There need to be some rules for some kind of battle happening. Your starting point is hopelessly vague, you need to narrow down the genre/scale/etc before you can say anything useful.

I would say it's almost worth spending as much time working on this issue as on the number crunching and stat naming side of things. And certainly put the time in defining the scope and goals before skipping ahead.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

LOL!