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.

Crystal-pilfering bandits battle hungry, hungry cannibals, as we test-drive the narrative rich Brutality Skirmish Wargame by Scott Wainwright. Enjoy the mayhem!

Hmmm, these co-op/solo rulesests seem to be all the rage right now.

But this is neither?

 Manchu wrote:
But this is neither?

It says so right on the cover? False advertising?

 Easy E wrote:
False advertising?

Not intentionally, I think. But from watching the vid, it’s pretty clear that this game is designed with the presumption of PVP. Solo/co-op rules are only included in the version you have to purchase and the indication is that they consist of AI for enemies, which strikes me as tacked on. When you play a computer chess game, does that make chess a solo or co-op game?

For this channel’s last vid, on Open Combat, I purchased the rules and some models, built and painted them, lobbied a buddy to try them out, and we got a few games in. Brutality doesn’t inspire me to do the same. It seems like a “heart breaker” rather than a game with any real insight of its own.

Understood.

Can you explain what you mean by a 'heart breaker"?

Also, you should add a review of Open Combat to your blog..... <hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

Ron Edwards coined the expression, broadly speaking, to describe independently designed games (specifically 90s era fantasy RPGs) that uncritically incorporate assumptions from their commercial inspirations (obviously D&D). You can read his essay here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

I’m using the term more broadly, in that I think the issue is myopia: the designer isn’t “well read” in terms of mechanics or simply doesn’t care about them as anything but a means to an end and that end in question is very particular to him (or her) rather than a broader audience.

An example in Brutality would be the attack resolution mechanic. You want to roll low for melee attacks but high for ranged attacks. This is because success in melee is testing the attacker’s relevant ability whereas success in ranged combat tests the target’s relevant ability. To me, this speaks to a lack of self-awareness. Surely, most people would question why you need two different attack mechanics, much less why they would tend in opposite directions.

Crucially, Edwards thought heartbreakers always have some good idea at the core of their creation. I’m not sure what that is in the case of Brutality.

 Easy E wrote:
Also, you should add a review of Open Combat to your blog..... <hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

I would definitely like to — but I think I need another game or two under my belt. I posted a thread on here about it, however.

 Manchu wrote:
Ron Edwards coined the expression, broadly speaking, to describe independently designed games (specifically 90s era fantasy RPGs) that uncritically incorporate assumptions from their commercial inspirations (obviously D&D). You can read his essay here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

I’m using the term more broadly, in that I think the issue is myopia: the designer isn’t “well read” in terms of mechanics or simply doesn’t care about them as anything but a means to an end and that end in question is very particular to him (or her) rather than a broader audience.

That's an interesting take. It's going a bit OT, but I do find that I most like games that have an underlying "reason" (for lack of a better term) for what mechanics it uses, and that there's some consistency in what I like to call the "internal metaphor" (for, again, lack of a better term). I think rather than derailing this one, though, I'll go start a thread in Game Design...

But, more related to OP, watched some of this and while it kind of looks neat, it doesn't "grab" me either.

Thanks for clarifying Manchu!

After a quick perusal I think it could have some potential as a low-intensity game. Something like I might play with my son when he is a bit older, as some of the concepts wold be nice for a gamer that needs some gentle direction for their imagination, like how most of the warband members are bought from specific archetypes, rather than created from scratch as in other games.

Where as something like Song of Blades and Heroes might lead to analysis paralysis in how any model might have any skill, so it's up to the player to guide the models warband role with how they choose abilities.

I don't know if it's something I would end up purchasing the "full" rules of, but the free Core Rules are perfectly serviceable. Most of the meat of any game comes from the players efforts, anyway, as long as the core game engine isn't too cumbersome.

 Valander wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Ron Edwards coined the expression, broadly speaking, to describe independently designed games (specifically 90s era fantasy RPGs) that uncritically incorporate assumptions from their commercial inspirations (obviously D&D). You can read his essay

I’m using the term more broadly, in that I think the issue is myopia: the designer isn’t “well read” in terms of mechanics or simply doesn’t care about them as anything but a means to an end and that end in question is very particular to him (or her) rather than a broader audience.

That's an interesting take. It's going a bit OT, but I do find that I most like games that have an underlying "reason" (for lack of a better term) for what mechanics it uses, and that there's some consistency in what I like to call the "internal metaphor" (for, again, lack of a better term). I think rather than derailing this one, though, I'll go start a thread in Game Design...

But, more related to OP, watched some of this and while it kind of looks neat, it doesn't "grab" me either.

Hello, i am the designer of Brutality skirmish Wargame. I have a very broad experience in game design. I intentionally chose the mechanics to be roughly half "roll high" and half "roll low" to even the probability spread if someone is rolling high numbers one game or low in the next. It was quite deliberate and its kind of interesting that a game that chooses to do things differently would be seen as ill informed because it is different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
False advertising?

Not intentionally, I think. But from watching the vid, it’s pretty clear that this game is designed with the presumption of PVP. Solo/co-op rules are only included in the version you have to purchase and the indication is that they consist of AI for enemies, which strikes me as tacked on. When you play a computer chess game, does that make chess a solo or co-op game?

For this channel’s last vid, on Open Combat, I purchased the rules and some models, built and painted them, lobbied a buddy to try them out, and we got a few games in. Brutality doesn’t inspire me to do the same. It seems like a “heart breaker” rather than a game with any real insight of its own.

Hello, designer of the game here. To be honest i am a lifelong solo gamer and this game was designed for that from the beginning. The fact that the entire ruleset isnt included in the free rules doesnt mean its tacked on. To have a balanced game system it helps to have it balanced across all systems including pvp. And most players prefer pvp, although i prefer co-op or solo.

Thanks for swinging in to clarify that incorporating seemingly inconsistent resolution mechanics was indeed deliberate and to explain your aim.

As to being ill-informed, keep in mind that I described the issue as either “not knowing” or “not caring” because another consideration is perceived as more important. It seems like it’s the second case here.

 Manchu wrote:
Thanks for swinging in to clarify that incorporating seemingly inconsistent resolution mechanics was indeed deliberate and to explain your aim.

As to being ill-informed, keep in mind that I described the issue as either “not knowing” or “not caring” because another consideration is perceived as more important. It seems like it’s the second case here.

I am still intrigued by the idea that resolution mechanics in a game must be one way or another. Certainly all games do things their own way, and there is no real wrong or right way to do it. It is a very interesting point of view that you have. I may see game mechanics that I do not care for, but I can never recall a time when I said that a game should follow a set pattern because other games do it a certain way. I enjoy the idea that your dexterity is a passive defense against being shot, which is actually a bit realistic. Characters in this set in may have been here for centuries and it would be assumed that if someone were truly stationary it would be a guaranteed hit.

I certainly would not judge the card game Uno based on its lack of a mana pool. I'm not offended by what you said, I'm actually pretty interested in that point of view. While it may be a hurdle for some people, the game has been wildly popular and we have a growing and supportive community online. I understand what you're saying about this liking the mechanic, I tried playing malifaux for a while and did not like the card mechanic.

I prefer "Internal Consistency" in rolling. So either roll high good, roll low is good, roll for a TN of 4+ every time, only add/remove dice never the opposite, etc. Mixing it up is a challenge for me.

I prefer this internal consistency for a simple reason. I am an idiot, and I can not remember exactly when I would need to roll high vs roll low etc. I see why you made the choice you did and am glad you shared the thought process.

That said, it is a personal preference that I like that internal consistency due to my own limitations. I have no idea what people like to play or why. I only know what I like to play and only sometimes do I know why.