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.

(Warning: I think this post is a tad lengthy, but the topic is something that greatly interests me and, hopefully as a fellow wargamer, it'll interest you as well)

Though I greatly enjoy the painting/modelling side of this hobby, nothing stimulates and excites my brain matter as much as a tactical, cinematic wargaming experience. For some reason pure board games with other, less violent themes don't quite tickle my gaming itch the same way. There is something about a board with infantry, warmachines and generals poised against each other over a battlefield that thrills me. If you're on these forums and reading this, you probably know what I mean.

But the thing I find most enjoyable and fascinating in wargaming are the game mechanics themselves, and how they function together to create a system that simulates a real battle while giving you and me the chance to clash our minds while melding our imaginations. This combination of cinematic simulation and competitive game are approached by designers in different ways, with varying degrees of abstraction in order to capture a good mix of tactical depth and authenticity. This begs the question: how much abstraction is too much? At what point does a wargame feel less like an actual battle and more like a colorful game of, say, chess? Other questions come to mind too; how important are naming conventions behind mechanics? And to what extent does background help tie in a set of rules to the miniatures on the table? As a wargamer, what game mechanics put you off a particular ruleset due to being just too abstract or not feeling right? Conversely, what game mechanics do you really love for their impact on the feel of the game and in aiding in the simulation - the authenticity of the battle?

Everyone has their own opinions on this and this is what I want to hear from you. I get that this is a broad topic, but it's something I think about often when I examine rulesets or watch games being played. For example, I think one of my absolute favorite games is Malifaux (and not purely because of the card system, but that's a cool mechanic too). I really like the rule set because of the way actions and activations are handled. To those unfamiliar with Malifaux, when a model is activated during the turn (in the game, players alternate activating models one at a time, like chess, as opposed to the 40k/WFB system of each player taking their entire turn) a model generally gets 2 action points to perform actions with (move, attack etc), but they also have so called "zero actions", that can be performed once each turn without spending an action point to do so. By itself, this isn't anything fancy, but I find that the designers really use this action point system in imaginative ways. For example, you can have some models that have a very slow movement, but they can use their "zero action" to be placed (teleported, in effect) to a specific friendly model within a set distance. Such a model can therefore be deceptively maneuverable, and will play and feel very different from a model that just has a flat fast move speed. This is cool and can be very flavorful, but in some cases the mechanics are used in quite an abstract way. Right now I can't think of any examples of the top of my head, but in any case I remember seeing some rules and thinking that some players used to more simulationist/less abstract rules wouldn't be sure what a specific action on a Malifaux model was supposed to represent. Contrast this to most 40k rules which seem to be extremely specific in what they are supposed to represent. I think the disadvantage in writing rules that attempt to demonstrate a very specific effect is that they can become clunky and unwieldy or open to abuse. Writing a rule with in a more abstract way could allow it to be more straightforward and easier to understand... I'm kind of rambling now (you can see I think about this a good deal). Anyway, looking forward to hearing some other opinions, and hopefully I've been at least somewhat clear in this post....

Wow, big post, there's a lot to take in. There's a lot to think about, i'll make some notes and get back to you.
My immediate reaction to abstraction is to do with the GW flyer rules. Sure they're made less mobile but with the game taking part on a football field and lasting approx 60 seconds irl (someone did the maths on this in a post if someone can dig that out, my figures probably aren't correct) what place do they have in the game?
Really at this scale it should be a case of, 'Pay your points, place a template'.
So yeah, that's a case where cinematics trumps realism due to the rule of cool. But big models are fun and it added an extra dimention to the game.

At what point does a wargame feel less like an actual battle and more like a colorful game of, say, chess?

You seem to be implying that chess doesn't feel like an actual battle.

When I think of all my favorite war games , they all have one thing in common.
Well defined intuitive rules.
Eg The game play unfolds how you expect it to,and the rules are written specifically for the game play the developers wanted.

If the game mechanics and resolution methods deliver the 'action' in a straight forward way that follows the perception of how the interaction works.The game flows.
The amount of detail in the resolution is largely unimportant .
EG a super detailed simulation might have lots of modifiers for each resolution.(Gun caliber, length of barrel ,range band, ammunition type,turret design, size and speed of target etc.)
A simpler system might only have 2 or 3 modifiers.(Eg cover and long range.)

If rules are written inclusively , eg they consider all the units in the game and how they interact.And cover 90% of the action with the basic game mechanics and resolution methods.
And just leave the special rules to add 'a bit of flavor'.This makes the game quicker to learn and play.

Abstracting the rules to simplify the resolution without abstracting the results is the goal.

Some rules simplify the resolution methods so much they abstract the results , and need to add additional rules to try to correct these outcomes...(Like 40k does IMO.)

I think the level of abstraction is tied to the scale of the game. For Skirmish games I prefer less abstraction and for battle sized games I prefer more abstraction.

The two key things to me are mechanics that:

1. Stimulate decision points, i.e. places where I need to make choices and decide on the trade-offs.

2. Turn Sequence. Games that keep both players acting and reacting in near real-time as opposed to long stretches of waiting. This can be done a number of ways in interesting ways such as Alternate Activation, Initiative Order, Go Until You Fail activations, Interrupts, Action/Reaction, and Alternate Phases/Alternate Actions, and probably others.

If a game does not allow for Decision Points in an interactive Turn Sequence; chances are I won't like. No level of abstraction will help me get beyond those two points.

http://youtu.be/BXj7L23uhxY I think with a little imagination you can immerse yourself in almost any game. I've started roleplaying board games like Catan and Clue lately.

Also, Chess is most fun when you make all the clanging swords and death sounds. This is a fact.

 solkan wrote:

At what point does a wargame feel less like an actual battle and more like a colorful game of, say, chess?

You seem to be implying that chess doesn't feel like an actual battle.

IMHO, chess feels nothing like an actual battle. Too structured. Too slowly paced. The players have unfettered view of every piece at all times. No random chance. (I could go on, but don't wanna go too far afield.)

As to the OP, the thing that interests me the most in wargames is how they balance the "realistic" with the "abstract."

Games that tend to be on the "realistic" side of the spectrum tend to get very bogged down with the minutiae of the situation. For example, in a very "realistic" WWII simulation, there would be different rules for a Tommy Gun and a Grease Gun; though both were .45 calibre sub-machine guns, they had different rates of fire and different muzzle velocities. This might be carried over a very broad range of different weapons, with rules attempting to codify the relative effectiveness of each weapon. Very realistic games tend to allow for a tremendous amount of freedom, in theory, but can be incredibly weighty with rules complexities.

On the other extreme, a highly "abstract" wargame might be a much more simply played game (Fox and Geese, for example), but becomes much more rigid in its game play. Even games like Go and classic Chess are limited to a two dimensional gaming surface, for example. You can't call in an airstrike on your opponent's pieces in Checkers.

So, pretty much every game designer has to decide where on that spectrum they want to be.

I really like Chain of Command.

The pre-game deployment of the jump off points and role these jump off points play - board control, creating fog of war, deployment of ambushes, as objective markers, etc - is both simple, elegant and innovative. There's a video explaining it on Youtube, it is worth trying out whatever game you play.

The way in which the turns are generated is also very good, Especially as it allows for one side to win the game - assuming they can get the dice - before the other side gets to deploy in the probe mission. Which may sound a rather odd thing to say, but it breaks the notion of a wargame being both sides line up and charge. And, in the 'normal' game allows the battle to develop in a organic way, which forces the player to make choices that are those faced by officers in RL.

Dang that's alot of words. Next time, please separate your questions into paragraphs, maybe even put the questions entirely separate.
That said...

KirbyFan wrote:
(This begs the question: how much abstraction is too much? At what point does a wargame feel less like an actual battle and more like a colorful game of, say, chess? Other questions come to mind too; how important are naming conventions behind mechanics? And to what extent does background help tie in a set of rules to the miniatures on the table? ...

... To those unfamiliar with Malifaux, when a model is activated during the turn (in the game, players alternate activating models one at a time, like chess, as opposed to the 40k/WFB system of each player taking their entire turn) a model generally gets 2 action points to perform actions with (move, attack etc),

First of all, as regards the activation in Malifaux, you're talking about "Alternating unit Activation" it's fairly common in games and really has little bearing on degrees of abstraction. I've seen it used in games that are extremely abstract and games that are incredibly detailed.

As for degree of abstraction, I'd have to say, it depends.
Some folks like lots of detail and some like games that move more quickly. There's some overlap, but it's just about impossible to have both in the extreme.

I prefer games that move quickly. Most of the suspension of disbelief and feeling of narrative excitement (I don't look for "actual battle" in my games) comes from my the spectacle of painted armies clashing on an evocative tabletop and a good scenario (see my last point below). Extensive detail nearly always takes time and actually tends to dull my enjoyment of the game and make it more difficult to suspend disbelief. I want games to be fast and fun and it doesn't bother me at all if an ork and a beastman (or other pair of units) happen to have nearly identical stats. Thus, I'm quite flexible on mechanics as long as they keep the game moving. Games like Song of Blades and Heroes, Warengine, Alpha Strike, and Kings of War really fit me well. They have different activation mechanics, number of stats, damage mechanics, etc, but they all are clearly written by folks for whom abstraction in the service of fast gameplay is entirely acceptable.

I should qualify the above by admitting that my preference for simple rules also comes from a general distaste for rules that reward pre-game listbuilding as much (or more) than in-game tactics. I'd much rather a player win by strategy than by unit selection. It's not always the case, but in sci-fantasy games, generally the more detailed the rules, the more emphasis there is on list-building and power-combos.

Perhaps most importantly for getting the actual-battle/suspension-of-disbelief feeling is good scenarios. No matter how detailed the rules I have a hard time seeing how folks can get a satisfying and immersive battle if they're mostly playing meat grinders, table quarters and objective markers. For me a well crafted scenario with a well crafted background, objectives and other factors does as much for the feel of a game as the set of rules played.

I have to admit I am heavily on the abstraction side of things - in fact, I much prefer a game to be a good game over it being a good simulation. I am at loss for a game that both does simulation and game mechanics well - rather, different games have different aspects that feel more realistic to me individually than as a part of the whole experience. For example, Malifaux (and Infinity, which I know better) opposed actions systems do a great job of that particular aspect of simulation. Alternate action systems, as a whole, I feel do flow really well while sacrificing the feel of having the initiative and carrying out a plan while your opponent is on the ropes well, while IGYG, on the other hand, sacrifice the feel of the individual flow of battle. Infinity, with its interrupt system in addition to its IGYG, do the individual flow better than your usual IGYG, but it can bog the game down a bit.

melkorthetonedeaf wrote:http://youtu.be/BXj7L23uhxY I think with a little imagination you can immerse yourself in almost any game. I've started roleplaying board games like Catan and Clue lately.

Also, Chess is most fun when you make all the clanging swords and death sounds. This is a fact.

Haha, that battle report was great! Thanks for posting that

Eilif wrote:
First of all, as regards the activation in Malifaux, you're talking about "Alternating unit Activation" it's fairly common in games and really has little bearing on degrees of abstraction. I've seen it used in games that are extremely abstract and games that are incredibly detailed.

I was actually mostly referring to Malifaux in terms of how its "zero action" system is used and how these can often be quite abstract mechanically and conceptually. I included the quick description of the game's alternate activation for some frame of reference, but I suppose I worded things poorly. For example, there's a model in the game called Night Terror (which is basically an evil giant bat), that has an action called "Night Falls" that debuffs enemy ranged attacks within a set distance. This gives the model more gameplay flavor, but one might ask what it actually represents. Is the Night Terror capable of literally creating an aura of darkness/shadow around it via magic/mysterious means (the action is classed as a "spell" after all), or is it merely an abstract representation of the Night Terror's characterful habit of preferring to hunt its enemies at night?

I want it to be clear that I don't personally think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer when it comes to abstraction in gaming, in fact I prefer abstract rules that add to the flavor of the game. I'm just interested in discussing this topic as I've heard some gamers outright refusing to play games because of a moderate level of abstraction. For example, Eilif you mentioned in your post that you might not necessarily mind Orcs and Beastmen having identical/almost identical statlines. In contrast I have heard of some gamers loathing rules where each model doesn't having fairly unique stats. I suppose this might cross a bit into the realm of "counts as" in wargames, which is its own form of abstraction in gaming and sometimes controversial. I personally really like games that encourage the player to use whatever models he/she wants to represent units/troop types, although this depends on the games rules system. Eilif, have you heard of the game "Hordes of the Things"? It is exactly like that. It's a fantasy mass battle game with quite abstract rules, and encourages players to be creative with modelling their armies. (Ugh, I'm rambling again... it's a stream of consciousness you know? I can't stop it...)

KirbyFan wrote:


. For example, Eilif you mentioned in your post that you might not necessarily mind Orcs and Beastmen having identical/almost identical statlines. In contrast I have heard of some gamers loathing rules where each model doesn't having fairly unique stats. I suppose this might cross a bit into the realm of "counts as" in wargames, which is its own form of abstraction in gaming and sometimes controversial.

It is a dividing line for alot of gamers ane rulesets. The fact is that as the number of units in a game system increases, you eventually end up with some units that have very similar stats. At that point you either have to create new special rules/stats and increase the complexity of the game or accept the fact that some units will be similar. I'm totally ok with units beings similar if it keeps the complexity down. I personally have no problem with proxying (or using "alternate") miniatures or units if the replacement figure/unit has weapons/armor/abilities/etc that are well represented by the statline.

Their are exceptions to this trend of complexity-enabling-unit-variation. Consider Tomorrow's war, which has a fair amount of detail in the actual game mechanics, but the designers clearly state that they think similarly equipped/trained troops are functionally near-identical on the battlefield. So so you have crunchy rules with comparatively little variation in statlines.

KirbyFan wrote:

Eilif, have you heard of the game "Hordes of the Things"? It is exactly like that. It's a fantasy mass battle game with quite abstract rules, and encourages players to be creative with modelling their armies. (Ugh, I'm rambling again... it's a stream of consciousness you know? I can't stop it...)

I picked up HoTT and Mighty Armies up when I was considering making some element bases to be able to play these games in 28mm (the scale all my miniatures are in) rather than 15mm which seems to be the accepted scale for HoTT. In the end though, they actually seemed too abstract to me. Never did end up playing HoTT or MA, but maybe someday.

Shortly afterwards I picked up Kings of War, which hits just the right balance for me between rules that move fast (statline-based modifiers are much better than charts IMHO)and give a bit of flavor to each unit, but aren't bogged down by special rules, expensive books and lengthy mechanics. Though it doesn't have a unit creation mechanic like Song of Blades (one of my all time favorites) it gives you enough army lists and flexible allies rules to provide suitable statlines for just about any fantasy units one might have or create.