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.

Greetings Designers,

I like the look of a clean table for my wargames whether they be massed battle or skirmish. I want the focus to be on the models and the terrain, and not much else. So, as designers, what are some tricks you build into your rules to help players keep track of the changing state of the battlefield in token/marker free way? What are clever methods you have seen others do it?

Discuss

 Easy E wrote:
I like the look of a clean table for my wargames whether they be massed battle or skirmish. I want the focus to be on the models and the terrain, and not much else. So, as designers, what are some tricks you build into your rules to help players keep track of the changing state of the battlefield in token/marker free way? What are clever methods you have seen others do it?

Although something can be considered "clean" it can actually create more issues or misunderstandings between players. In a casual environment it is less of an issue but in a competitive environment, it is a huge issue.

For a clean method I'll reference X-Wing. The cards all represent each of the ships used. Instead of playing tokens next to the ships, they are placed on the cards. The only thing in the gameplay area are the miniatures, terrain and sometimes dice.

The issues though arise when opposing players can't accurately tell what state a "miniature" is because the tokens are on the cards. They are still open and visible to the side, but they aren't in the game area which can be frustrating to most players. Each time they do a move or plan something, they are constantly having to reference something not 'visibly out in the open'.

The best of both worlds has been utilizing something like Mod-Cube. It doesn't look like a standard token. It makes it easy to place, also easy to pick up and move. It is clear representation next to the miniature. Another method is to utilize a base where the token inserts (although more fiddly) or goes against the base.

Now there are games that don't really need tokens as miniatures don't have a lot of different states. They are just activated or not activated, which is easy to keep track of. However then those games tend to lack a lot more depth than others.

I like to believe that KOG light is a (relatively) "clean" TTWG, and that was very deliberately by design.

For example, rather than having hitpoints / hitboxes, all models (bases) have 2 hits, being Crippled (white smoke) before Destroyed (black smoke) / Eliminated (removed from tabletop).

Cover from terrain is simple, all or nothing. No distinction between hard / soft / concealment.

I don't bother with "stances", facings or arcs, and don't need them, due to the combination of TLoS and AoN cover.

Small scale (~5 models/side) and Phases (Igo-Ugo) simplifies tracking of activation.

Movement only impacts the immediately following actions, rather than carrying into the subsequent turn.

But even then, I have tokens to denote crippled / destroyed, along with fast move / holding position.

Having some form of casualty removel helps - a unit's status is denoted by how many models are in it, no additional counters (or "casualty rings) needed.

You can also use appropriate models in place of counters - FoW's spare tank crew for Bailed Out markers, baggage trains to denote supply status, etc. That doesn't cut down the clutter, but it makes it look more "real".

I am in two minds about the "table clutter", from one side it allows things to be visually available for both players at a glance and if the counters are designed correctly they can thematically fit as a GUI overlay, on the other hand a more plain counter design means less additional expenses.

The compromise is giving the units stat cards and keeping the counters on the stat cards on the side of the table.

In many historical games you keep necessary records, such as ammunition depletion, on off-table notes.

I like stat cards for private information that the player should know (character is a veteran) vs. tokens for public information that everybody should see (character is ON FIRE!).

Another thing historical gamers often do is to place scenic markers. For example, in gunpowder games you would place cotton wool along the front of a unit that is firing/has fired. A tank that has been blown up would have a blob of fiery cotton wool put on it.

I agree with cotton & wool! Good stuff!

It is the same clutter though just disguised as thematic.

Is it really the same?

Smoke and wrecks fall under "realistic tabletop" that both players can see and react to, as opposed to artificial markers and tokens. If the smoke becomes a concealment effect, and the wreck provides hard cover, then we're really talking about dynamic battlefield terrain, which is a completely separate topic from "clutter", and I don't see it as a problem at all.

What are we talking about when we discuss clutter? To me it is stuff on the tabletop that is necessary to the functioning of the game but looks bad. The obvious remedy is to either remove it to off-table notes, or replace it with stuff that looks good.

Another example is placing casualty figures behind a unit to represent casualties or lost hit points. This is a different approach to placing skull markers or a die, and IMO it looks more part of the game.

It is an interesting question what looks good?

For example in Infinity (the transparent fluorescent markers) and in 40k when they used the fluorescent 2D and 3D markers for me they look great and part of the battlefield because they feel as part of the game and universe like HUD notes on the table, the same elements in guildball or warmachine for example are nice and functional, but look out of place for the setting.

The cotton and smoke for historic settings is more or less the same a thematic marker that gets in the way of a clear battlefield, but looks good on the table.

Gunpowder smoke obscuring vision was a notable feature of the battlefield during the black power age. It might be though an important part of the scenery.

Yes, but this could be represented by a token taking much less space and not obscuring actual vision from the players, the fact remains is using cotton or wool wire to represent smoke looks far better than a token.

its not a big assumption that in a sci fi environment smart HUD would relay all short of information on the warriors eyes and commanders command display for this reason "holographic" 2D and 3D tokens feel as good in my eyes for that era as is the smoke in the gunpowder historical setting.

I agree with you about the HUD type displays in SF games -- they look really good in laser cut acrylic -- and logically electronic warfare would be very important in a cyber environment -- Hackers in Infinity actually are part of the game, of course.

The point about gunpowder smoke is that historically it did obscure vision to a significant degree, and if you want to simulate real black powder warfare that is something to take into account in the game design, so a cloud of cotton wool powder smoke that actually obscures the player's vision is a good scenic element.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What are we talking about when we discuss clutter? To me it is stuff on the tabletop that is necessary to the functioning of the game but looks bad. The obvious remedy is to either remove it to off-table notes, or replace it with stuff that looks good.

Another example is placing casualty figures behind a unit to represent casualties or lost hit points. This is a different approach to placing skull markers or a die, and IMO it looks more part of the game.

I'm generally agreed on this, though I side more toward realistic & minimal ("good") and artificial & overladen ("bad").

For the casualty tracking, why not just have lots and lots of figures and remove individual models as casualty markers? Isn't that a really good system? Especially if the game encourages block battles with large numbers of wounds per unit? Someone should make a game like that. It'd be really immersive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The cotton and smoke for historic settings is more or less the same a thematic marker that gets in the way of a clear battlefield, but looks good on the table.

The smoke is more than a marker. It is *supposed* to obscure the battlefield. That's precisely what it is modeling! And if the rules are good, there is a concealment effect.

I understand that, up to the invention of, I think it is called, smokeless powder, smoke from the volleys of fire created a significant visual obstruction.

But from a game mechanics the rules can simulate that putting curtains of smoke can be visually appealing, but distracts from the actual gameplay.

Assuming the game designer is not interested in introducing visual limitations to the players, but keep the usual over the battlefield eye view, I can assume it could make an interesting memory game/ guessing game to find the enemy positions behind the smoke, but the rules can simply introduce it to the combat resolution.

If we are playing in a blackpowder era, then the smoke from firing should be an integral part of the game.

While a designer could choose to remove it, the choice to do so is inferior to physically representing the smoke on the battlefield. It makes the game worse, to the point that one might as well not bother making it a miniatures boardgame, but instead to revert to hex-and-chit.

More to the point, your entire line of argument shows the sort of gross mismatch in technology and rules that characterizes a lot of the rulesets published today. You are advocating to use hypermodern far-future holographic tokens to inappropriately represent black powder technology, where analog cotton smoke is a better actual match for the period and rules. Further, you are advocating Unique tokens and Special Rules over the application of whatever generic concealment rules might already be in the core rules.

I am going to tell you that a Revolutionary War game using Infinity-based mechanics and conventions is a poor idea. Just as it is a poor idea to apply WFB/40k-esque conventions to WW2 gaming a la Flames of War and/or Bolt Action.

No, I do not, but somehow I was sure you would reach this conclusion... sigh.

I am advocating that the use of markers should, if possible, be appropriate to the games era, this reduces the feel of table clutter because it feels thematic to be there.

That means that the clear acrylic markers of Infinity (and 5th edition 40k?) do not feel as out of place as they could easily be part of the commanders HUD giving info for the battlefield, on the other hand the standard Infinity markers could give the feel of table clutter because they are not thematically fit, they are just markers, well designed, but just markers.

Likewise using the above markers for fantasy or black powder era do not feel thematic and would increase the table clutter feel, using the above mentioned smoke would feel thematic and would not increase table clutter, I am assuming KOW markers that are bodies that accompany the unit have a similar effect.

And now we move on a separate subject that was raised here, there are two schools of thought on game design an older one that insists in putting physical limitations and skill checks on the player, like putting smoke that visually obscures the battlefield for the player, judging distances for the catapults, fitting models on vehicles ectr and a newer one that believes all these physical limitations should be reflected on the actual game mechanics and leave the players visual and dexterity skills out of the game.

I am firmly against the use of smoke as a visually obscuring gimmick on the battlefield in black powder era the smoke build up and made visual contact difficult this should be reflected on the rules of the game (x units fired from a side Z shooting penalty towards that side or whatever) and not on chocking visually the battlefield with lots and lots of 3D smoke screens made of cotton or wool wire.

Recapping, the way to reduce the feel of table clutter when your system needs the markers is to either have them off the table area on statcards or, to make the markers fit thematically on the table.

I'm sorry, but you were exceedingly unclear if you intended to say that "HUD" and markers are completely inappropriate for blackpowder / steam gaming, because I read you as arguing that such markers would somehow be acceptable for blackpowder.

And I still completely disagree with your notion of not using physical smoke in a blackpowder era where naked eye and simple glass is the limit of observation, and the rules and mechanics support that. Along with the notion of not using smoke for crippled / burned-out vehicles. It's not a "gimmick". But for you to claim so, only reinforces my point that you are coming at blackpowder from an Infiniti hypertech POV.

I would also note that you completely misunderstand the conflation of player physical limitation and unit capability. Obsuring smoke actually does affect unit capability, and is used a reminder to the player - that is why it is a mechanic in blackpowder gaming. In the real world, vehicles really did burn up and create plumes of oily black smoke that were visible from some distance away. And these clouds of smoke were clearly visible to the enemy. Further, some form of TLOS is indeed something that the actual units would have had to deal with, compared with artificial LOS mechanics like "magic cylinder".

These mechanics that directly simulate what the units would have encountered are completely different from "guessing" vs rolling against ballistic gunnery. That you conflate these things suggests that you don't understand how smoke works as a reminder to the players.

Finally, to reiterate my earlier comment, the only truly effective way to reduce clutter is to reduce the number of states that exist in the game, along with reducing the duration that such states remain active in the game. Both of which are entirely within the designer's control. Having a large number of states and hairs to split is simply poor design that can only be partly mitigated by complicated stats cards and tokens and markers. It is a clear sign that the designer is not competent at assessing what factors are significant in abstracting for gameplay.

HUD is heads up display, based on military technology that has moved over to civilian use, essentially it overlays visual information on the real image giving enhanced information about the real world, with google glass and other world enhancing technologies on the rise it is not a big leap forward to assume this will be commonplace in the future especially on the battlefields.

The most common usage of HUD for the average person though is the use of a HUD in computer games displaying the games important information to the player.

Visually depicting the example

This is the typical Infinity marker it serves its purpose is visually distinct and looks out of place on the table one could make a stand about table clutter.


Even though here are depicted way more markers they are not as immersion breaking because they are designed to feel like HUD information and this helps a lot to hide their "appearance" from the battlefield.

The same markers on a game set in an era not set in near future or sci fi would look as distracting as the top marker because they do not fit on the setting.


The casualty on the left is a far better marker than the skull on the right, even if the skull was an elegant marker as the ones customeeple does for Infinity, it would look out of place because it does not fit the era.

Now on the flames smokes and tank hulls.

Cotton and wool wire are an easy and fast ways to depict a vehicle is dead, you could easier simply remove it and avoid a section of the rules that deal with how dead the vehicle really is but they are visually stunning and they do not break the games immersion and does not obscure the battlefield.

It also works well as markers for the simple actions discussed above showing a unit has fired and how much smoke there is on the battlefield

This is ok, it gives a visual indication without obscuring the battlefield.

On the other hand this visually impacts the gameplay hiding the units behind it from the player

Making it even larger to visually obscure more gives in my opinion even worse gameplay experience, even thought it might be more authentic.


Of course what you said is quite logical, the less states the rules take into account for the combatants the less markers you need for it, simpler game systems need less book keeping, less book keeping less markers, streamlined to the extreme a game needs no markers what gaming experience it will deliver is another thing altogether.

Now on my points it is my game design philosophy that the game should be visible to both players and visually obscuring elements should be avoided, smoke is a marker, it should be small enouph to never hide the unit(s) behind it, if the rules must take into account the visual obstruction 2 turns of fire on the battlefield it should be done on the rules giving negative modifiers on hitting the target obscured by smoke, not by actually visually blocking the units behind it.

I also do not like the game rewarding players for dexterity and other physical skills that are really out of the game, like the old rules for artillery on GW games or the epic rules of physically dropping markers from a height to determine the landing locations of drop pods and other examples that I forget at the moment, judging distances is also a rule I do not like and prefer premeasuring if possible.

For me obscuring visually the battlefield is a gimmick, it gives a visual aspect agreed but detracts from actual gameplay.

At this point we are diverging into the topic of simulation versus game.

A black powder simulation necessarily must involve the effects of smoke and weather conditions, since these had a huge effect on the commander's ability to eyeball and assess the battlefield. Sound was another dimension of senses, and foggy conditions -- which could also be brought on by powder smoke -- were known to make it difficult to judge the direction and distance of firing.

These factors ideally should be represented on the table, since we are playing war games in which we use attractive figures and terrain because we like the visual presentation.

It is not necessarily a matter of physical skill because the game rules can incorporate factors without using a player's physicality. This also leads the conclusion that you don't actually have to place smoke clouds as the rules can in some way assume that they are present and factor them in, but, as already said, we play with figures and terrain rather than counters and maps because we like the visual effect so why not enjoy the visual effect of smoke that IRL was actually there.

Obviously a game can choose to ignore these kinds of elements in favour of a simple, uncluttered tabletop and simpler rules and so on, and no-one can say one is better than the other, as it is a matter of personal preference.

What I say is the game can factor all these in the rules and the visual representation can be as light as it possibly is (it could range from no visual representation to counters to minor 3D visual counters) to avoid the visual obstruction of the actual game.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
HUD is heads up display,

This is the typical Infinity marker it serves its purpose is visually distinct and looks out of place on the table one could make a stand about table clutter.
Even though here are depicted way more markers they are not as immersion breaking because they are designed to feel like HUD information and this helps a lot to hide their "appearance" from the battlefield.

Now on the flames smokes and tank hulls.
Cotton and wool wire are an easy and fast ways to depict a vehicle is dead, you could easier simply remove it and avoid a section of the rules that deal with how dead the vehicle really is but they are visually stunning and they do not break the games immersion and does not obscure the battlefield.

It also works well as markers for the simple actions discussed above showing a unit has fired and how much smoke there is on the battlefield
This is ok, it gives a visual indication without obscuring the battlefield.

On the other hand this visually impacts the gameplay hiding the units behind it from the player

Spoiler:

Making it even larger to visually obscure more gives in my opinion even worse gameplay experience, even thought it might be more authentic.

Of course what you said is quite logical, the less states the rules take into account for the combatants the less markers you need for it, simpler game systems need less book keeping, less book keeping less markers, streamlined to the extreme a game needs no markers what gaming experience it will deliver is another thing altogether.

Now on my points it is my game design philosophy that the game should be visible to both players and visually obscuring elements should be avoided, smoke is a marker,

I know what a HUD is.

The Infinity thing looks awful, overbusy, and handwaving that it's a HUD doesn't really help me very much.

The WW2 steel wool and ACW smoke looks awesome. The giant markers are the real crime in the ARW picture, not the smoke. Removing destroyed hulls is a poor mechanic, as wrecks provide useful cover.

Chess is stateless and markerless, and most people say it delivers a rather challenging gaming experience between two similarly-skilled players. KOG light is minimally stateful and can deliver a pretty complete TTWG experience - you should probably check out the latest version just to see what is possible.

Your preference holds for a moderns / sci-fi / hypertech environment, and KK did an excellent job explaining why your preference does not hold for blackpowder wargaming.

Customeeple markers look perfect in my opinion for the environment they are in, the simulated smoke (and fire) is another gimmicky method of having markers on the table taking up even more space and cluttering visually the battlefield even more they visually looks good, but for me depending on how heavily handed they are, they impact game play a lot.

I think with KK we are in agreement on the need to have modifiers ectr for the smoke in black powder era games, the disagreement if there is any is how necessary are excessive visual representations and frankly here is the main disagreement especially with you, you want a spectacle I want a game and the same philosophy applies in designing all games regardless of eras and scale.

Those Infinity markers are an eyesore and take up a HUGE amount of space.

A TTWG is supposed to be visual. And your claim of smoke being a spectacle, when your Inifinty example is gaudy AF is extreme hypocrisy.

Maybe you should limit your blackpowder gaming to boardgaming rather than TTWG.

Also, you never addressed my point with respect to minimalist gaming. Why is that?

I think we are on the opposite sides of design philosophy, that's ok.

My KOG light game encapsulates what I'm looking for in a TTWG design, and yes, it's clear that you are looking for something which is very different. What I don't understand is why you are playing TTWGs at all, given that you seem to consistently argue for something more akin to a RPG which happens to battle on a tabletop.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
What I say is the game can factor all these in the rules and the visual representation can be as light as it possibly is (it could range from no visual representation to counters to minor 3D visual counters) to avoid the visual obstruction of the actual game.

That is right, of course.

To me, though, smoke (in a black powder game or a modern game involving smoke) can be an important part of the game as mechanism and scenery. In other words it isn 't visual obstruction, it is visual enhancement of an actual part of the game.