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.

 MindwormGames wrote:
I think there's a danger here of conflating randomness with complexity and/or depth.

There's been a great deal of discussion about randomness in the thread. Randomness itself is indicative of neither complexity nor depth.

Random chance has much more to do with experience. The outcome of a game should be unpredictable. That's what makes it fun; we do not know what the result is going to be. Hence why some in this thread have said that a predicible game is not enjoyable.

You are right- randomness can add to both complexity and depth, and it can also reduce depth (I'm not sure if it can be used to reduce complexity, but it doesn't necessarily add much).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
The picture shows the very end of one turn. The bride is in the very corner, merely 3-4" from escaping. The Lawmen are wounded by coming after her --- we reshuffle the activation deck. There are ten players all waiting anxiously, two of them were 10-12 years old and were jumping up and down screaming. Very first activation card? Bride. She runs off the table, narrowly escaping the pack of lawmen.

Honestly, this is an example of bad randomness.

I'd describe it as bad randomness for a wargame but good randomness for a board game you don't intend to play frequently.

It's the sort of randomness that'll get a laugh the first time something like that happens, maybe even the 2nd or 3rd time, but after a while it gets old. After I've had my battle plan completely destroyed by bad luck a few times I'm all about reducing randomness Especially if it's a short game, randomness isn't as bad if each game only takes 20-30 minutes to play because you'll play a bunch of games in an afternoon and it'll tend to balance out.

Pretty much any game I'm going to go to the effort of painting the miniatures to play and a game takes more than an hour or so to play, I like randomness to be a periphery, not the main event. If it's just a board game I'm going to pull off the shelf like monopoly, sure, randomness is fine.

See, I'm the opposite. I enjoy games like Dragon Rampant (where, with a bad roll...you don't even activate anything on your turn), Fireball Forward (where you draw cards to determine activations), co-op games where you're encountering random events/enemies, and while I don't play Bolt Action, I like the "drawing activations" from a bag kind of thing. I like the Battlegroup games where you're drawing break numbers from a bag when you lose a unit (meaning you suffer a serious knock to your army, or you actually gain a lucky chit). I think the difference here is that I don't care about winning - particularly in skirmish games (even moreso in ones with a campaign which builds an evolving story). Sure I like to win, but some of the very best games I've ever played, I've lost - sometimes terribly so.

Of course, running my Old West game, it's simply not a game unless someone says 'Screw it...I'm a cowboy" and walks across the street shooting double sixguns. It's almost never the smartest thing to do - but it is damn cool. For me, a game (notably a skirmish game) is more about making a Hollywood-esque film come to life on a table, not clinically and mathematically eliminating someone from the table. I'm not playing poker for money - I'm there to have a good time. When I'm working on a new game, I might create a mechanic which is accurate, simple, and logical...the next question is "is it fun?".

Back to the topic at hand, I've played numerous games which are mechanically sound. Balanced, logical, well written...and the most boring thing I've spent time doing. As someone said earlier, complexity is useless if it doesn't add a benefit to the game. Added rules for rules sake, or wishing to address ever facet of real life combat doesn't always yield a "good game" to a lot of the target audience. That's where occasionally in a game you'll stumble upon a genius mechanic. One which is fun, accurate, simple, and perhaps kills two birds with one stone. Those are genuinely cool to encounter. When you're playing a game and think "Damn, that's a great way to address that situation...".

 Elbows wrote:
I think the difference here is that I don't care about winning - particularly in skirmish games (even moreso in ones with a campaign which builds an evolving story). Sure I like to win, but some of the very best games I've ever played, I've lost - sometimes terribly so.

No, the difference is I care if I have an input as to whether I win or lose. I don't care if I lose, I just hate winning or losing because of a random event.

I don't mind in the context of board games, but in the context of a wargame, I just find it gets old fast if I'm either winning or losing because of random events. It's something that's fun for a short time at best.

If the outcome of the game is totally out of my hands, I dunno, I think I'd rather read a book or something

For me, a game (notably a skirmish game) is more about making a Hollywood-esque film come to life on a table, not clinically and mathematically eliminating someone from the table. I'm not playing poker for money - I'm there to have a good time. When I'm working on a new game, I might create a mechanic which is accurate, simple, and logical...the next question is "is it fun?".

Fun and random/silly aren't synonymous, that might be appropriate for you, it's not for everyone. Even something that might be "funny" might not necessarily make for a "fun" game mechanic.

There has to be a balance with randomness. A random event where you auto-lose is not fun for most people, but on the flip side a core element of wargames is that randomness requires you to somewhat think on your toes. Once the game is so random that you're no longer thinking on your toes but rather just bound to random events it's no longer a game, it's a random story telling event with little toy soldiers going pew pew pew at each other

And as I said previously, you get away with more randomness in games where people aren't invested. 40k is a game where players tend to be heavily invested (in money buying the models, in time painting them, in the time it takes to play a game) so it gets more flak for being random than a game like, say, Blood Bowl, where a few bad rolls can totally feth up a game as well.

Right, and I don't disagree with you - more that Peregrine and yourself seem to be stating it as an arbitrary fact that X is not good, where Y is --- rather than an opinion on said rules.

@morgoth.
You posted..
''Dude, you are stating that GW purposefully fethed up all balance and possibility of balance in 40K, which is obviously wrong (it's never been as balanced) and really expecting GW to shoot themselves in the foot, on purpose and without any reason.

They have made mistakes, but blaming them of torpedo-ing 40K to prevent any possibility of balance is just unrealistic.''

Your frame of reference is obviously very different to mine.What editions of 40k have you played?What other game have you played?

1)40k has never been that balanced.(Compared to other rule sets.)

2)All the editions from 3rd edition 40k on wards have managed to do is add more layers of complication, without fixing any core game play issues.
EG
The lack of player interaction with the WHFB game turn mechanic.
The imbalance between assault and shooting.

3)The decision was made to ignore game play issues and game balance , and focus on short term sales of new releases.
Since then GW plc have lost over half the sales volumes they had, and new companies that do take rules development seriously are growing their market share.

So if I am 'obviously wrong' please find a statement from GW ,(Chairman/C.E.O or game developers,) that clearly stated GW put clearly defined game play and professional level of rules writing at the top of their priority list for 40k game development.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
The picture shows the very end of one turn. The bride is in the very corner, merely 3-4" from escaping. The Lawmen are wounded by coming after her --- we reshuffle the activation deck. There are ten players all waiting anxiously, two of them were 10-12 years old and were jumping up and down screaming. Very first activation card? Bride. She runs off the table, narrowly escaping the pack of lawmen.

Honestly, this is an example of bad randomness. They key event of the game came down to a completely random draw, rather than any player decisions. Consider an alternative where each side had to make a blind bid for the ability to move first (paying, say, movement distance vs. activation speed), and the bride's player had to carefully weigh how much they could afford to bid for that first activation without taking on too much risk of not being able to escape in a single activation. Now you still have the same moment of anticipation before the bids are revealed, but the outcome is 100% in the hands of the players. I suspect the "success" of the game had less to do with good game design and more to do with the fact that you had an audience of young children..

I think this - the issue of player control- is the crux of the difference between what you are looking for in a game and what the players of the game were looking for. And I'd reject the thinly veiled insult implying that the participation of children was the reason for the "success". I know alot of gamers who enjoy games where the outcome of the game is in partly out of their hands. These type of gamers tend to enjoy RPG'ish and narrative elements in gaming. They are fine with a game where even the best laid plans can completely fall apart and no matter how hard you chase her, sometimes the bride escapes. Clearly the gamers were enjoying the chase and whether or not the bride was captured was secondary to the excitement of the chase.

 totalfailure wrote:
Times and tastes in games and complexity levels change over the years, too. Never forget that in many cases, with a behemoth company like GW, the game has to offer something to as broad a range of players as possible to generate sales. Designing a set of rules that makes everyone happy from casuals to tournament players to fluff bunnies seems nigh on impossible with 40K.

Steve Jackson Games is going through this with a new edition of Car Wars right now. Car Wars was pretty popular in the 80s, but the new version upcoming is going to ditch a lot of things other than the basics of the setting - cars blowing each other apart. Why? The rules were a bloated mess of minutia after a bunch of expansions, and except for nostalgia value, that kind of rules heavy approach would be DOA in the marketplace today. The crowd of people willing to wade through all that to sit around taking one hour plus to simulate 1 second of game time is a lot tinier today than it was in the 80s. I suspect very much the same is true for Star Fleet Battles.

No argument there. Now it's all "Federation Commander", which is SFB stripped down so simple it's boring... in my opinion, anyway.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 MindwormGames wrote:
I think there's a danger here of conflating randomness with complexity and/or depth.

There's been a great deal of discussion about randomness in the thread. Randomness itself is indicative of neither complexity nor depth.

Random chance has much more to do with experience. The outcome of a game should be unpredictable. That's what makes it fun; we do not know what the result is going to be. Hence why some in this thread have said that a predicible game is not enjoyable.

You are right- randomness can add to both complexity and depth, and it can also reduce depth (I'm not sure if it can be used to reduce complexity, but it doesn't necessarily add much).

Randomness in itself adds uncertainty which in turn makes choices harder but it doesn't add/reduce complexity or depth (that's a more fundamental function of how you design a game). Of course if you just arbitrary add randomness all over the place then you are making the game more complicated (but not increasing complexity).

Uhm guys if you keep using adjustable wrenches, your product will not be really good. You never EVER use adjustable wrenches to make or take anything apart. You will just end up stripping the nut/bolt and round the head. Always use the proper wrench.

That is like saying you are using regular scissors to cut of your minis of the sprue. That is like using a painters brush that you use for walls to paint your minis. They are cheaper and take up half the space since you don't need so much.

Just because you have less and cheaper doesn't mean it's better. Use the proper tools for the proper job. Not what is cheaper or takes up less space. In other words, play the game for what you want it to do.

Here is a little test for you,

Pick you favorite army , take a couple of hours to write some fun fluffy rules for it.Including some missions, with special objectives and terrain.
The only qualifying criteria for acceptance is you must find them fun.

Then , pick you favorite army, and write rules for them to arrive at engaging random pick up games with all the other armies.
See how long this takes and how much harder it is to do...

'Fun rules' take no time at all to write or validate, compared to the instructions to play a game written with clarity brevity and elegance.

Everyone is capable of the former, very few are capable of the latter.

So most people expect when they buy a rule set, it is the clearly defined instruction on how to play the game .

So rules that deliver a specific type of expected game play are good rules.

If players are expecting chess and they get snakes and ladders , the players are not going to be happy.
If players are expecting snakes and ladders and they get chess they are not going to be happy.

Therefore randomness that detracts from the intended game play is bad.

Lanrak wrote:
Here is a little test for you,

Pick you favorite army , take a couple of hours to write some fun fluffy rules for it.Including some missions, with special objectives and terrain.
The only qualifying criteria for acceptance is you must find them fun.

Then , pick you favorite army, and write rules for them to arrive at engaging random pick up games with all the other armies.
See how long this takes and how much harder it is to do...

'Fun rules' take no time at all to write or validate, compared to the instructions to play a game written with clarity brevity and elegance.

Everyone is capable of the former, very few are capable of the latter.

So most people expect when they buy a rule set, it is the clearly defined instruction on how to play the game .

So rules that deliver a specific type of expected game play are good rules.

If players are expecting chess and they get snakes and ladders , the players are not going to be happy.
If players are expecting snakes and ladders and they get chess they are not going to be happy.

Therefore randomness that detracts from the intended game play is bad.

Exactly people expect a wargame, and they get dungeons and dragons in space, with guns.

Some people play aos / whfb and 40k because they want dungeons and dragons in space, with guns.

 Elbows wrote:
Of course, running my Old West game, it's simply not a game unless someone says 'Screw it...I'm a cowboy" and walks across the street shooting double sixguns. It's almost never the smartest thing to do - but it is damn cool. For me, a game (notably a skirmish game) is more about making a Hollywood-esque film come to life on a table, not clinically and mathematically eliminating someone from the table. I'm not playing poker for money - I'm there to have a good time. When I'm working on a new game, I might create a mechanic which is accurate, simple, and logical...the next question is "is it fun?".

This is a situation where you can have your cake and eat it too.

You can have a game with nice, tight rules that still encourages players to say 'Screw it...I'm a cowboy'. It's simply a matter of making the fun/cool thing also something that makes sense to do in the context of the game rules.

If you want people to walk out into the middle of the street shooting double six-guns, it has to be a desirable choice. It can involve risk, sure, but it should also come with a benefit that could potentially outweigh the risk, thereby leaving it up to the player to manage those risks.

If there's no benefit to doing it other than 'it's for the lols', you're essentially asking people to not play the game.

If you want a narrative game, the rules should support the narrative. If you want a Hollywood-esque game, the rules should support that gameplay experience. Supporting those types of experiences does not inherently necessitate obviating player choice.

It is a choice.

A) Sit and do nothing.
B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability)
C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill
D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill

D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.

Acceptable complexity in games?

I guess I'm a bit weird when I say 'it depends'. There is a time and a place for both the complex, and random.

If someone was to ask me my three favourite games, I would answer, honestly with the following:

Infinity. In my mind, i see it as probably the most technically brilliant game out there. A handful of models, hyper detailed rules, the fact that it is always your turn. There's are a million things going on at the same time, and loads od things to keep track of. I find it a very intense, engaging and enthralling game.

Warmachine. In my mind, I see it as my 'go to' game for ease of play. Huge variety, solid rules, solod balance and a fantastic 'organised play' scene making it very easy to just be able to turn up and get on with it (and yes, to those that are more familiar with seeing me posting my support in favour of diy gaming and narratiVe gaming, I will remind you I also enjoy pick up games, of which WMH is one of the best.) again, WMH has a combo/synergy based gameplay, with a million things going on and loads of things to keep track of. I also find it a very intensely, engaging and enthralling game, for many of the same reasons that's I enjoy infinity.

My third game? Lord of the rings strategy battle game. Completely at the other end of the spectrum. And i genuinely love it for being different to the other gsmes. Simple, straight forward and intuitive, elegant rules. With a pile of random put in. No, seriously. When two models are fighting each other, who wins isn't determined with stats or anything - it's determined with a die roll. Just an ordinary roll off - whoever wins the roll off wins the fight and rolls for damage. But it works.

Here's the thing. Random doesn't necessarily come at the cost of complex rules or depth. And choice isn't always necessary for a good game. Often the best games I've had have been based on the premise not on having the units I wanted, but rather doing the best I could with what I had available to hand. Choice has its own hurdles and consequences, not all of which are positive ones. Random, when it's done right, represents a chaotic element outside of your control. Like a game of football, you can be as skilled as you want, but no one will ever be a hundred per cent accurate, or a hundred percent able to control the flow. Oftentimes football comes down to 'managing chaotic elements'. Lord of the rings? Sure,I can move my dudes, and position them. When it comes to fighting, it's completely out of my hands, just as war is often chaotic, and the game becomes less about processing stats, or even manipulating stats in my favour and instead boils down To managing chaotic elements out of my control. It can make games very interesting. Having an unpredictable 'hand of God' element in a game that is out of your control does not make it a bad game. But you do need to change your perspectives to be able to appreciate and enjoy its merits.

 Elbows wrote:
It is a choice.

A) Sit and do nothing.
B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability)
C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill
D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill

D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.

But that's not really the point, is it?

The salient point is why players are making that choice. Are players making that choice despite the fact that it is an objectively 'bad' choice, or are they making that choice because it is an equally or situationally effective choice?

You have self-described it as a 'silly' choice, which suggests that you, the game designer, feel that it is an objectively 'bad' choice to make. And yet you want players to make that choice, because it serves the interest of the gameplay experience. That's the disconnect.

My point is that you don't have to choose between gameplay experience and rules. Game rules can, and ideally should, serve the desired gameplay experience. You can have a game wherein optimal gameplay also serves the interests of the story.

Indeed, doing so means that both players focused on 'winning' the game and players focused on the 'story' of the game will be making effective choices. In other words, you shouldn't have to play 'badly' to have fun, nor should playing 'well' mean that you can't have fun.

Edit: Introducing a lot of random elements is a great way to erode player choice, it can serve to 'level the playing field' in a game, preventing players who are inclined to make 'optimal' choices from dominating the game. It can, in this way, make a game seem less 'serious' or more accessible to a casual audience. The tradeoff is in depth of gameplay. At some point you wind up watching the game 'happen' versus using meaningful choices to control the outcome.

Again, as I said earlier, randomness inherently erodes choice. And choice is why we are playing games in the first place.

 MindwormGames wrote:
Indeed, doing so means that both players focused on 'winning' the game and players focused on the 'story' of the game will be making effective choices. In other words, you shouldn't have to play 'badly' to have fun, nor should playing 'well' mean that you can't have fun.

I agree.

If you have silly/risky options, I think there should be circumstances where that's actually the smart thing to do as well. Blood bowl's turnover and turn limit system kind of does that. The turnover system makes you try and play safe, but the 2 half turn limit system means if you're coming close to either turn 8 or turn 16 your risk to reward ratio shifts, so what was stupid to do in turn 2 or turn 10 becomes the most logical thing to do in turn 7 or turn 15 (and it might come off brilliantly or you might just fall flat on your face, but it was still the best option at that time and maybe not the best option at a different time).

 MindwormGames wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It is a choice.

A) Sit and do nothing.
B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability)
C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill
D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill

D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.

But that's not really the point, is it?

.

Mindworm, I appreciate the subtly condescending tone in your post. I encourage you to continue on with your own game design philosophies and opinions. To answer your first point, yes, it is the point. The point of my game is to have a laugh-out-loud good time rolling dice with friends. It delivers that, and that's the extent of my desire. As long as my table full of players have a good time - mission accomplished. So far, so good. I'll continue to let my players make their choice, good or bad, for whatever reason they wish. Believe it or not there is a beautiful middle ground between "watching the game happen" and making choices. You can do both.

 MindwormGames wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It is a choice.

A) Sit and do nothing.
B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability)
C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill
D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill

D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.

But that's not really the point, is it?

The salient point is why players are making that choice. Are players making that choice despite the fact that it is an objectively 'bad' choice, or are they making that choice because it is an equally or situationally effective choice?

You have self-described it as a 'silly' choice, which suggests that you, the game designer, feel that it is an objectively 'bad' choice to make. And yet you want players to make that choice, because it serves the interest of the gameplay experience. That's the disconnect.

My point is that you don't have to choose between gameplay experience and rules. Game rules can, and ideally should, serve the desired gameplay experience. You can have a game wherein optimal gameplay also serves the interests of the story.

Indeed, doing so means that both players focused on 'winning' the game and players focused on the 'story' of the game will be making effective choices. In other words, you shouldn't have to play 'badly' to have fun, nor should playing 'well' mean that you can't have fun.

Edit: Introducing a lot of random elements is a great way to erode player choice, it can serve to 'level the playing field' in a game, preventing players who are inclined to make 'optimal' choices from dominating the game. It can, in this way, make a game seem less 'serious' or more accessible to a casual audience. The tradeoff is in depth of gameplay. At some point you wind up watching the game 'happen' versus using meaningful choices to control the outcome.

Again, as I said earlier, randomness inherently erodes choice. And choice is why we are playing games in the first place.

Is choice really why we play? I think it may be secondary, tertiary or even further down the piriority list for many gamers.

Nothing in the description of Elbow's game suggested to me that his game requires playing badly to have fun or that playing 'well' mean(s) that you can't have fun. Rather simply that there is a choice that is objectively the least likely to succeed and statistically least effective choice while at the same time if it succeeds it has the biggest payoff.

More to the point, I don't think you should necessarily try to measure the in-game validity of a choice merely based on it's in-game probability or success. As demonstrated based on the continued success of casino's around the world people don't all game logically (some would say they rarely game logically). Much of gaming is taking the gamble (even when it isn't the wisest choice) to try for the big payoff. Gaming (wargaming especially) allows us to vicariously take chances that we never would in real life. I would suggest that in wargaming - where there is likely no money at risk- is perhaps an even better meliu for taking the risky/stupid/fanciful choice hoping for the payoff and yet enjoying the laughing at the chaos if/when the attempt fails.

Further, there's also the setting to consider which is not some hyper-competitive tournament or cerebral matching of wits over a chessboard. Rather, this is a convention game with 10 folks around a table playing out a "Spagetti Western" a genre where the fanciful, exagerated and larger-than-life is celebrated along with the trajedy, failure, foolishness and loss .

Lastly, I've seen the same tendancies in the "Mech Attack" (Think Battletech with 1/10th the rules, playing in 1/4 the time) participation games that I've run at conventions. If it means being able to unload alot of firepower on an enemy unit, participants will frequently choose to run and fire all their weapons even if that means risking the dangers of oveheating and/or leaving themselves open to an easy counterattack.

 Elbows wrote:

 MindwormGames wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It is a choice.

A) Sit and do nothing.
B) Perform an action to hide (increase your survivability)
C) Advance and shoot one Sixgun at normal skill
D) Advance and shoot two Sixguns at reduced skill

D is obviously the riskiest and silliest choice...but I'm happy to say that most of the gamers I've played with make that choice a couple times per game.

But that's not really the point, is it?

.

Mindworm, I appreciate the subtly condescending tone in your post. I encourage you to continue on with your own game design philosophies and opinions. To answer your first point, yes, it is the point. The point of my game is to have a laugh-out-loud good time rolling dice with friends. It delivers that, and that's the extent of my desire. As long as my table full of players have a good time - mission accomplished. So far, so good. I'll continue to let my players make their choice, good or bad, for whatever reason they wish. Believe it or not there is a beautiful middle ground between "watching the game happen" and making choices. You can do both.

Whoa there, pard. I'm sorry if I caused offense.

We're talking game design philosophies here. I'm not trying to crap on your game.

I thought you wanted to use your game system as a specific example to illustrate what we have been discussing. But I didn't even want to get into the nitty-gritty details of how your game works, hence, 'that's not the point'.

In the abstract, it seemed to me that your viewpoint was that it is desirable for players to make sub-optimal gameplay decisions because it serves the 'story' of the game, or the gameplay experience.

That's an interesting viewpoint from a game-design perspective, and well worth discussing. Not because I think you are wrong or that your game sucks. Rather, it presents an interesting challenge: how do you motivate the players of a game to make sub-optimal gameplay choices?

My personal view is that if you make the optimal gameplay choices serve the interests of the 'story', you don't have to find a way to motivate players to make sub-optimal choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eilif wrote:
Is choice really why we play? I think it may be secondary, tertiary or even further down the piriority list for many gamers.

I think choice is absolutely why we play games. That's what makes a game different from watching a movie or reading a book.

At its core, your choices, and more importantly the other players' choices, are what table top gaming is all about.

You can paint miniatures without playing a game. You can build terrain without playing a game.

To some people, the game itself might merely be an excuse to engage in those satisfying hobby activities, but there's a reason we choose to play games with other human beings.

I get your point though, and I think it's more than fair to say that outcome isn't always terribly high on people's reasons for playing a table top game. And choice correlates with outcome.

At the same time, there's a reason we play Candyland with our kids. The game has no choices, but it teaches the process of gameplay. It teaches you about how to wait your turn, how to roll dice, how to follow both the rules of the game and the rules of social interaction surrounding the game. But we graduate from a choiceless game like Candyland to games that allow the choices of players to impact the outcome of the game.

And let's face it, none of us are going down to the FLGS to play Candyland this weekend . Whether or not we want to win, I think it's still fair to say that we want to make choices. We want to have control.

How much control do we want, and at what cost in terms of rules complexity, well, that's what this thread is about, isn't it?

HI folks.
As I stated earlier the level of complexity in game play is dependent on the target audience.
As this is decided by personal opinion /tastes, it is important to make it clear exactly what the intent of the game play is.

Firefly ''A challenging game of WWII land warfare in 300th scale.'

Is targeting completely different target audience to ..

Pass the Pigs' Fun for all the family ages 5 and over.'

Completely abstract games like Chess, Snakes and Ladders,etc.Need to have straight forward rules that are brief and easy to understand, as the player shave no real world reference to use as a guide.

War games are simple simulations of real war fare types.
So when players play X-wing they are referencing the accepted concepts of 'WWII air combat '' dog fighting'' ' as portrayed in the Star Wars films for space fighter craft.
And the generally accepted way physics work, eg the faster something goes the wider the turning arc,The further away the target is the harder it is to hit etc.

As the game is based on simple simulation, it is intuitive , so needs very little in the way of complicated explanation to justify the way the rules deliver the game play.

This is true of all the good games I can think of. (Blood Bowl is not a classic war game , but uses real world American Football as a solid reference for the game play. )

To clarify simple simulation, abstracts to simplify the resolution to speed up game play , but does not abstract the outcome.

EG The ammunition type, length of barrel, turret lay out, skill of the gunner / commander , wind conditions, etc can all be simplified to a basic dice roll to determine if the shot hits.Eg basic chance to hit is X+.

This is simple simulation as it abstracts the resolution for ease of play.

Completely removing important factors that players expect to be taken into account.(This varies from game to game.)
Abstract the results and leads to counter intuitive game play.(WTF moments.) And this generally needs lots more rules to try to explain/justify why the game play is the way it is .

After you have decided on the level of complexity in the game play.
Then you have to write rules that deliver the game play in the most intuitive well defined way.

Clarity , brevity, and intuitive, are the corner stones of great game rules.

Over complicated, poorly explained and counter intuitive rules writing , is not good for any one.

So the game play complexity depends on the target audience.
Complication in the rules should ALWAYS be kept to a minimum.

Fun silly rules can be made up by anyone, and added at any point to any rule set.
Narrative can be added to the game play by anyone that wants to narrate the interaction in the game.

@auticus.
Wow you are really on the defensive here.

Loki posted.
''Exactly people expect a wargame, and they get dungeons and dragons in space, with guns.''

I took this as an example of some one miss selling a games game play. Like Selling Chess to people who want Snakes and Ladders.

I assumed that as Dungeons and Dragons game play is rooted in 'sword and sorcery ' reference, adding lots of ranged weapons , and changing the setting from 'ancient fantasy world', to 'sci fi outer space', would result in confused players.

Why did you post..
''Some people play aos / whfb and 40k because they want dungeons and dragons in space, with guns.''?

A.O.S and WHFB are not set in space and do not have an abundance of guns.Why assume they need defending?From a post that did not include them in any way?

And only you thought of Loki was referring to GW games in particular.

I could see some people understanding 40k has no clear game play definition, and therefore ''dungeons and dragons in space with guns '' may be applied to describe its game play by some.(And not by others.)

Again, as I said earlier, randomness inherently erodes choice. And choice is why we are playing games in the first place.

Full player choice is indeed why *some* people play games.

People like myself play games for a mixture of some choice and for narrative / storytelling purposes and immersion.

For me, full player choice is bad simply because it is not immersive and does not reflect any reality I know about, where people can cherry pick the best of the best and dictate a battle without worrying about unforseen events happening.

I don't personally enjoy those type of games. I actively avoid them, because they are not fulfilling what I want out of a game.

I think thats the important thing to note, that there is a wide range of acceptable weight on choice.

MindwormGames wrote:[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eilif wrote:
Is choice really why we play? I think it may be secondary, tertiary or even further down the piriority list for many gamers.

I think choice is absolutely why we play games. That's what makes a game different from watching a movie or reading a book.

At its core, your choices, and more importantly the other players' choices, are what table top gaming is all about.

You can paint miniatures without playing a game. You can build terrain without playing a game.

To some people, the game itself might merely be an excuse to engage in those satisfying hobby activities, but there's a reason we choose to play games with other human beings.

I get your point though, and I think it's more than fair to say that outcome isn't always terribly high on people's reasons for playing a table top game. And choice correlates with outcome.

How much control do we want, and at what cost in terms of rules complexity, well, that's what this thread is about, isn't it?

I think that last point may bet key. It's the degree of choice and in what meilu the choices take place. Also, here's something for thought. You can have alot of choice in a game with much randomness and you can have very little choice in a game with near full player control.

Personally, "choice" has very little priority in my gaming. I don't necessarily have the exact phrase, but perhaps it might be said that I'm looking for emersion and experience.

auticus wrote:

Again, as I said earlier, randomness inherently erodes choice. And choice is why we are playing games in the first place.

Full player choice is indeed why *some* people play games.

People like myself play games for a mixture of some choice and for narrative / storytelling purposes and immersion.

For me, full player choice is bad simply because it is not immersive and does not reflect any reality I know about, where people can cherry pick the best of the best and dictate a battle without worrying about unforseen events happening.

I don't personally enjoy those type of games. I actively avoid them, because they are not fulfilling what I want out of a game.

I think thats the important thing to note, that there is a wide range of acceptable weight on choice.

This sums up fairly well what I'm trying to get at. I also share the opinion that "full player choice" can be -for me- detrimental to narrative emersion. I have no interest in exact simulation, but I like some feel of reality in my game and a game where the two players have nearly-full-choice seems even further from that than a game with an excess of chance.

Interestingly this conversation comes up among boardgamers as well. Some of them so prefer the player control aspect of a game that having dice or random card draws are seen as a negative when assessing a game. It does give a new perspective on the conversation since wargamers on the other hand tend to regard dice rolling as a near essential part of the experience.

That's exactly right, Elif, random chance indeed has a long tradition in table top wargaming, in my opinion because of its association with warfare.

I too tend to dislike boardgames without random elements. I'm a very big fan of so-called 'Ameritrash' boardgames, like Zcide or Mice and Mystics because of the primacy of shared experience over competition.

I also don't like playing wargames competitively. This does not, however, mean I don't appreciate tight rules and a high degree of player control.

I think it's unfair to draw an association between so-called 'narrative' games and casual, easy, or unchallenging games. Not that I'm saying you have, but I think there's a tendency to do so.

A fluffy army does not have to be a crappy army. A co-op, story-driven game can present difficult tactical challenges to overcome. In short, you don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But it is easier to design a story-driven game because you can gloss over weaknesses in the rule set with 'experience'. You can invite players to not think as critically about the game system, and encourage them to focus on placing a 'good time' over winning.

Now, it's always good to focus on experience over outcome, but again, this doesn't mean you are obliged to undermine the integrity of the system.

Please note that I am not saying that randomness inherently undermines the integrity of a rule set. But I think we can all agree that there comes a point when random chance inevitably undermines the integrity of a game, because at some point the game stops being a game. It stops being an exercise in solving problems and becomes an activity of watching something unpredictable happen.

People who enjoy a competitive game tend to appreciate fairness. The more fair a game is, the more confidence you have that the outcome has been decided by player skill.

But fairness and balance detract nothing from a narrative or uncompetitive game. If there is an 'optimal' way to play, you must provide some context outside the rule set within which it is desirable to make sub-par gameplay choices. And yet the reverse is not true. If there is no 'optimal' way to play, you need no context in which to encourage players to make certain gameplay choices. Nor do you run the risk of a player with the 'wrong mindset' from ruining the game.

There is also a social and intellectual cost to making sub-optimal gameplay choices. You have to justify that choice, even if it is only to yourself. This cost might seem trivial, but it exists. And it gets more difficult to deal with when your choices are compared to other players, who might very well be making optional choices.

It even matters in a co-op game. Brandon's character is having a consistently more significant impact on the game than mine. Billy's character is just as good at doing my character's 'thing' but also good at doing lots of things my character sucks at.

The overall point here is that experience doesn't have to come at the cost of tight, solid, balanced, or whatever you call it game rules. Similarly, choice does not have to come at the cost of unpredictability.

Lanrak wrote:
A.O.S and WHFB are not set in space and do not have an abundance of guns.

Age of Sigmar has a space station. If that is not "set in space" then I don't know what is.

@Davor.
I did not know that, as I have paid little attention to A.O.S since its release, as it just seemed complete wast of time to me.

I think we need to note the difference between randomness that sets up the game and randomness that decides the game. The classic "surprise, you just got ambushed" example is the first kind. Something you didn't expect just happened, and now you as the player have to figure out a way to overcome the obstacle by making successful choices. It arguably might be better to have the ambush under player control (for example, by letting the players bid for the right to choose the scenario for the game), but even the random version creates opportunities for interesting player choices rather than negating them. The "surprise, the bride escaped" example is the second kind. There were no player choices involved in the outcome of that game, the GM just made a random draw to decide which side won. The players were nothing more than passive observers of a story that they had no part in writing. And that's the kind of thing that is bad design.

I mostly agree, Peregrine. I think what we're talking about is not so much the fact that you make some choices, but the quality of the choices you make for the game.

I dislike Arkham Horror because I don't feel I make quality decisions in the game. I could look for a clue at one house- and get a random card there, or another one and get a different random card. Either card could have something good for me, and either could have something bad.

I just don't feel like I'm making an informed strategic decision- I feel like I'm making a completely uninformed random decision.

However, I'm ok with random elements deciding the outcome a little bit- sometimes a close game can come down to one extremely tense die roll, for example. When a game has some element of chance in it,and the players all play equally well, then the game can very well come down to a bit of luck. There's nothing wrong with that, is there?

I mean, all of the players made choices that led to a situation where the bride could have escaped. Maybe they figured that the risk was small and prioritized something else (basically, betting on the wrong horse). Maybe the players fought against each other really well or very poorly (ie- they played just as well as one another). Clearly everything about that last random initiative draw was extremely tense and exciting. They sabotaged one another, kept each other from getting to the objective first (if the bride was a player, she clearly played on par with the group such that it came down to the one final draw).

Sure- the game could have included other elements like bidding on initiative- but it isn't necessarily a flaw that the game didn't use those elements. Honestly, I think bidding on initiative is kind of a kooky mechanic- because some turns it is best to go first, and some turns it is best to go last.

Nice topic. I learned it as complexity vs. complication, as per Azreal's distinction. The former deals with interaction of core rules. The latter deals with lots of individual, special rules and exceptions.
I'd also agree with the definition of tactics vs. strategy - the interaction of core rules requiring at least some decision-making, maneuvering etc. in-game; while special rules demand more sifting through before the game, deciding which models you'll take (the stronger ones per point spent, i.e, the mathammered ones), and letting those rules play out without as much in-game input. It's an over-simplistic way to put it, maybe, but at least it's apparent where my preferences lie.

As I always do, I'll point to my introduction to the concept: checking out Epic: Armageddon after being used to 3rd ed 40K. The former stuck to abstracted profiles with a few general 'special' rules, even fewer army- or unit-specific rules, but you had more choice of basic actions to perform, and maneuvres to achieve, with any of your formations: shoot, advance, march, assault, overwatch, crossfire, etc. Initiative, strategy rating and blast-markers also encouraged you to think more about placement of formations, who's supporting who, and so on. More so than the move, shoot, fight, trigger special rule nature of 40K, or so I thought, and think. (Along with the exasperating meta-game of checking off the shopping list for your veteran sergeants, etc.)

It's why I can't really get behind many of the big, popular, all-in-one games, that do things better than GW but in the same kind of GW way. Warmachine's combos; Infinity's monkey-typewriter rules; Malifaux's card game with incidental miniatures... They're not so obvious as 40K, but to my eyes they're still geared to associate certain special rules with certain models, and write out your shopping list for you. The one that involves money, not points. While I'm at it, I'd also caution against viewing AoS's bare core rules and warscrolls as complexity. It's still a lack of choice buried under a lot of special rules.

Randomness: I agree that a game without randomness can feel a bit... dead; but that too much randomness is infuriating. Part of what did my head in with WHFB was looking too often at the random table for the skaven screaming bell. It's an example of what's 'fun' about playing skaven, but at the risk of sounding like an old fogey, after buying and building and painting that model, to have it 'hilariously' blow up or wipe out half of the other models I bought, built, and painted, in a game ostensibly about block maneuvre... nah.

Mindworm's thoughts about randomness are interesting and I agree with the risk vs. reward aspect of it. To combine that and the line about randomness eroding choice, and the above definitions of complexity vs. complication, tactics vs. strategy: what I like, what I think it all boils down to, is making in-game choices that reduce randomness and risk - hopefully in a quite elegant way.
And so I'll rabbit about another game I like: Mayhem, a fantasy mass-battle game. The randomness comes in the form of the number of command points generated each turn, and the few profile stats represented by different polydice (d4-d20). The choices come in the form of default stats (less than what the full dice roll might earn you) and a system of counters that involves the old flank and rear charges, but also weapons, armour, unit type etc. that affect eachother. A kind of advanced 'rock, paper, scissors' that rewards canny placement with improved or increased dice - choices that reduce risk. It makes you think about what you can and should do with each command point, and I find it pretty satisfying.
(Plus, I can represent a screaming bell as a slow chariot with anti-armour abilities, armed with blunderbusses. Another good example of making choices to reduce randomess! )

Although I'm not opposed to more chaotic game styles, under the right circumstances. Something that doesn't take itself too seriously, in price and premise (expensive minis fighting a grim battle for the fate of a world - or a universe) as well as playstyle. Elbow's game looks pretty good in that regard. I've had times like that with Gutshot.

 Vermis wrote:
Although I'm not opposed to more chaotic game styles, under the right circumstances. Something that doesn't take itself too seriously, in price and premise (expensive minis fighting a grim battle for the fate of a world - or a universe) as well as playstyle. Elbow's game looks pretty good in that regard. I've had times like that with Gutshot.

Gutshot is a fun game.

At its most basic level, Gutshot is a game where you put toy buildings on a table and move around little metal cowboys, pretending they are shooting at each other.

That's an attitude I can get behind, lol. Personally, I think it's a great idea to take event the most 'serious' games with a grain of salt. We're all at the table to have fun!

As mature adults, the simple act of pretending little metal dudes are shooting at each other, absent a meaningful choice-based arbitration system, tends to feel shallow. But keeping alive that spirit of youthful imagination is part of the magic of minis gaming. I'd say it's a really big part.

My personal philosophy is that it is perfectly possible to have your cake and eat it too, which again is what makes minis gaming so awesome. You can have a tight, tactical, game that nevertheless feels easy and fun, or narrative, or cool, or whatever term you use to describe that critical element of youthful imagination.The 'pew pew' vs the 'QQ' if you will.

I think what we've seen in this thread is a discussion of 'tipping points' where game rules (whether by being too 'serious' or 'not serious enough') go too far in eroding your enjoyment of the gameplay.

If Gutshot is any example, there's honestly a lot to be said about not only how a game's rules function, but also how it is presented whether you're talking about setting, theme, and/or even the way rules are written.