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 fellow designers!

I've been working on a sci-fi skirmish miniature game (placeholder title: STARGRAVE) and I've hit a serious snag in my process, as I have been attempting to alleviate two issue I've usually had with wargames:

1) Taking the sting out of having the worst of luck when rolling dice, and have a way to mitigate the effect of failing rolls or losing units.

2) Keep both players with a winning chance at least until the final round, or have some way for a player that is getting overwhelmed to have a fighting chance at a comeback.

Now, I know both of these aspects are seen as a bit of a par-for-the-course in any wargame, but being inspired by roleplaying games, such as Powered by the Apocalypse, and various boardgames, I kept wondering if it couldn't be done; especially when I also wanted each game to have a great narrative going on throughout the game - or at the very least, the most optimal conditions for it.

What I came up with was a resource, or meta-currency, that was gained whenever a unit would fail a roll. This resource, Fortune, could then be used by other units later in the round to improve their chances, soak damage, or to use cool powers.

But, as I soon found out through some playtesting, wargames are quite a different kettle of fish. Unlike RPG's, a player will usually have to make rolls for at least 5 to 10 characters at a time, verses the one character in an RPG. Thus, the points would quickly skyrocket and become unfeasable, as players would roll 5-10 dice in a given round, possibly more, increasing the volume of stuff to track.

Then, as there's no direct victory points to be tracked or gamed for, the boardgames that I looked at couldn't really help either; Fortune wasn't really a goal in and of itself, it was more a means to an end which would be decided by the scenario being played.

In short - the tl;dr - is that I have the following questions:

1) Are there any wargames out there with either a "failing forward" and a "catch-up" mechanic, where players who are taking heavy losses still have a fighting chance for a comeback?

2) Are there any suggestions or places for inspiration, to see either or both mechanics at work in a RPG where the "failing forward" isn't ruled by the GM?

3) How would you envision, or suggest, that such mechanics could be implemented in a wargame? Not that I'm asking for anyone to design it for me, but I could really need a good boost of inspiration.

Thanks for reading!

I've never played a wargame with this as a built in mechanic, and can't say I would enthusiastically do so. Arbitrarily trying to ensure that a game remains "up in the air" until the last turn would fundamentally break most games. You're penalizing the winning player just to make the game come to a false conclusion.

That's way too much interference in something like a wargame. It could also lead to drawn out games in which one player is frustrated because the game is propping up a completely defeated player and not allowing the game to reach a natural conclusion.

I think this would absolutely ruin my enthusiasm for a game. I think there are far better ways to approach making a balanced game, but a losing player should be allowed to lose (due to skill or luck, it's part of a game, it's fine). I'd have to be convinced of the merits of this idea to even begin to think about how to do it.

EDIT: I should clarify that I don't mind random events or occurrences in a game which can have a drastic impact on the game...but it should never be pre-planned or designed in with that goal. My Old West game for instance is a crazy shoot-em-up skirmish game, and silly things happen as part of the game design, but it's not a strategic wargame based around carefully maneuvering and engaging your opponent. Nothing is triggered when a player is losing - can they draw a lucky card/event? Absolutely, but it's not guaranteed at all or built into the game. If an incredible swap around occurs late in the game it's by dumb luck or chance - not the game intervening purposefully to level the playing field.

First off - thanks for responding! Was dreading that this topic would just be left read, but uncommented.

I fully agree that the danger in such a concept lies in making any moves feel completely pointless, and that any gains by a winning player should not be overruled by a 'blue-shell' out of nowhere.

The object wasn't to make a balanced game, but rather to avoid having a game that was over-and-done before it really got going. I've lost track of the number of games where the last four turns were just a foregone conclusion...

An idea, in the veins of your Shoot n'Skedaddle (love the title by the way) might be to have a player draw a fate-card whenever they lose a model instead? That way, it could alleviate the feeling of hoplessness when the bad rolls keep turning, but not guarantee that you gain a great upper hand (heh).

However, the reason for these Fortune-points was that I would like to keep the game component light (rulebook, some tokens and dice would be all that was required to play).

I just think I would look at the game as a whole, and make changes so the game doesn't get to the point that you play six turns if only two are needed. Even a person losing would rather lose...faster? If that makes sense.

Some people would prefer to just get killed, clean up the table, re-set and start over. If a player gets lucky or unlucky, perhaps the game should be allowed to conclude faster and easier? I just think there are ways you could mitigate the need for a come-from-behind system.

If you really want a mechanic built in perhaps you could do something like a "Desperation" deck? Drawing one for each unit that is wiped out - the "Desperation" cards allowing super risky or suicidal tactics that aren't normally available? So the losing player realizes it's a super dangerous gamble, but perhaps if he's lucky this one time he can shift the game a little bit? Maybe a "Desperation" card is similar to calling in a 'Broken Arrow' kind of air strike? Basically the situation is so bad you call in a huge airstrike nearly on top of yourself - with a huge risk to your forces, but also to the enemy, etc. Maybe a Desperation card sets up a booby trap on the location of a unit you think is about to be overwhelmed or overrun...maybe you get a extra long distance charge move as you fix bayonets and crazily charge the unaware enemy? Depending on the nature of your game, maybe someone straps on a suicide vest, or triggers an ammo cache they're sitting on?

Another way to avoid the need for the system could be a concealed objectives style mechanic? Maybe each side draws a "Major" objective (revealed to their opponent?), and two "Minor" objectives (not revealed?). The minor objectives could be things which would be feasible with almost any unit, and if the losing player succeeded in both, they could claim a tie at the end of the game or something? This could result in a major loss, but the losing player may reveal that he kept a certain character alive, and didn't yield this one particular building or location...or he managed to kill one specific target, etc.?

I think for an average wargame I always prefer actual objectives and not the "go stand on this token" nonsense you see in games like 40K. If a scenario has a legitimate and obvious objective, you can succeed or fail at various times in the game, and players should be able to concede defeat if it's a rout within a few turns.

Example: "My goal is to take the Farmhouse on the ridge...I drop in some paratroopers and get a lucky scatter on turn one. They survive enemy fire and I charge into the farmhouse on turn two capturing it...I set up to defend it, and I keep my opponent from re-capturing it".

Just like in a real engagement, most of the time one side withdraws when they realize they can't logically win. I don't think I'd like a game which goes for a set number of turns regardless of the ass-whoopin' someone is getting

Godtear.

The scenarios are dynamic, and scored each turn. In general, if you lose a turn, you get to change the locations of the objective tiles. Hypothetically helping yourself and hindering your opponent... and if your opponent loses the next turn, they then have the opportunity to alter the playing field towards their benefit.

If models / Champions fall, actions can be spent to revive / recruit replacements. You fall behind in terms of action economy... but you’re literally never going to be tabled.

Ooh, those are all some great suggestions!

I think that a mechanic like that of Godtear's scoring might be a good method for ending a game at a suitable note. Just like in DreadBall where the game ends once a team has scored 7 points more than their opponent.

My only issue there might be that the game I'm envisioning is a Frostgrave/Mordheim/Necromunda type deal, and thus setting up a lot of terrain for a game that ends after 45 minutes might discourage people to play, if setup takes longer than gameplay.

I do like the idea of "Desperation" cards, although I am not a fan of needing a deck to play a game (i have a terrible tendency to forget stuff like that).

A quick thought:

Draw a common Major objective for both players, each then draws two Minor, chooses one, and keeps it secret.

Then whenever a player suffers "Hardship" they draw a fate counter. This can give them a small, random, bonus when used.

However, once a player has reached - say - 6 such counters, the game ends at that point; each player then tallies their victory points gained from Major/Minor objectives.

Some good suggestions, here, but I think Elbows has made the key point about looking again at the game as a whole. It sounds like you may have a too-flat bell curve. Having a run of bad dice happens, but it should be so frequent an occurrence that the game needs a mechanic to off-set it.

My approach has always been that players are offered opportunities to influence the odds through smarter play and better choices. I think it's important that bad choices should lead to bad results and vice versa. But, at the end of the day, there's always going to be that unexpected roll that can shift the balance of the game, because that's part of the joy and pain of wargames.

You can do a bit more in this respect with a campaign system, though. For example, in Zero Dark there are complications which are almost always bad for the heroes in the course of a mission. But in a campaign they earn more XP the more complications they face.

The new Warcaster: Neo-Mechanika by Privateer Press apparently lets you recycle casualties as reinforcements, which is something I've suggested for Warhammer 40k as a way of allowing people to play with all of their toys all game instead of just the first couple of turns.

Something you might think it having the victory conditions scale with the forces available, so as one player's force suffer attrition they get progressively easier victory conditions.

Perhaps, being able to trade in bad dice rolls for a "Fog of War" style card maybe useful?

I.e. 5 failed roles allow you to trade for one random Fog of War card that adds a complication such as a Electo-magnetic interference descends on the battlefield until a serious of bad rolls can be turned in to remove it or another card drawn....

Thank you all for some great suggestions! I can see that I was a bit too deep in the mechanical focus, and lost track of the overall design in the process.

I wanted the game to be more narratively driven, which was why I started looking into the 'failing forward' aspect, and didn't realise that the system that I had put together was a lot more 'thinky' than required.

So, I started over in a sense, and reworked the mechanic into another idea that I had mulling about with chit-pull activations instead. Here's what I came up with:

- At the start of the round, each player puts in one token for each of their models into a bag, plus two "count-down" tokens.

- Then, players draw a token from the bag and can either choose to bank it or take it.

- Banking saves the token for the next time they take the initiative.

- Taking means that the player becomes the active player and can now activate a model per token.

- When given a token, a model can move and attack in any order. Models can receive up to three such tokens, with each additional token either giving them a +1 modifier, or allow for quick-actions (hip firing, edging closer etc) or possibly other stuff.

- The first time a 'count-down' token is drawn, the player who is behind in points can then use that token for various things, such as reactivating a model, force an opponent to activate one of theirs or whatever (still fleshing this part out).

- When the second 'count-down' token is drawn, or when all other tokens have been drawn, the turn ends and victory points are counted up.

- As soon as one player gets to - say, 6 - victory points, the game ends at that point.

The main difference is that rather than tracking resources seperately, it is already included in the main mechanic and can give a small leg-up for the player who is behind, without going into minutiae.

The other thing that this system allows for, is easier multiplayer battle and the inclusion of random events; which again can be controlled by the player who's currently behind on points.

Oh, and it also gives me a push-your-luck mechanic that I'm quite fond of in the drawing/banking dynamic of chitpulling, making it suitable for solo-play as well

My question is what's the appeal of a narratively focused skirmish game designed to have an unnaturally long game time because of a design which is focused around forced parity? What's the hook that this game has that I can't get from a half dozen other games that already exist?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
My question is what's the appeal of a narratively focused skirmish game designed to have an unnaturally long game time because of a design which is focused around forced parity? What's the hook that this game has that I can't get from a half dozen other games that already exist?

Sorry, but I don't follow where the "unnaturally long game time" comes from? And what it will do different is to be designed around campaign/narrative gaming, have a chit-pull activation system with a push-your-luck element and hopefully be engaging and quick enough that you can play through a couple of linked games in an evening.

I think the notion is that when you try to get a kind of even, back-and-forth action going on there's a tendency for games to bog down into a stalemate that goes on until someone decides they're willing to throw the game.

I had this problem with early versions of Titanomachina, where the defensive options open to players essentially cancelled out the effect of offensive options.

The problem, I found, was that I was designing with two unstated assumptions: (1) the players would make the smart moves, and (2) somehow one player would make smarter moves and win.

I think you need to consider that some subset of players will not always make the right move, and perhaps will make all the worst moves in the game, and how much you want to punish them for it. Every time you punish a player for boneheaded moves, you lose a player. The converse is also true, that if you reward players for making bad moves you're giving the players that make good moves the feeling of being punished.

Here's what I think you should do: in a tabletop game you're balancing (ideally) three resources: time, space, and material. Chess does this well, if not perfectly. In Chess players can pay off things like material against space and time, pieces against position and moves until checkmate, and that's kind of the game outside of the specifics like the moves they can make.

Maybe think of it like how you'd handicap a game with uneven forces, like a 40k game of 1,000 vs 2,000 points, or what-have-you.

Phoenikuz wrote:

Spoiler:

Thank you all for some great suggestions! I can see that I was a bit too deep in the mechanical focus, and lost track of the overall design in the process.

I wanted the game to be more narratively driven, which was why I started looking into the 'failing forward' aspect, and didn't realise that the system that I had put together was a lot more 'thinky' than required.

So, I started over in a sense, and reworked the mechanic into another idea that I had mulling about with chit-pull activations instead. Here's what I came up with:

- At the start of the round, each player puts in one token for each of their models into a bag, plus two "count-down" tokens.

- Then, players draw a token from the bag and can either choose to bank it or take it.

- Banking saves the token for the next time they take the initiative.

- Taking means that the player becomes the active player and can now activate a model per token.

- When given a token, a model can move and attack in any order. Models can receive up to three such tokens, with each additional token either giving them a +1 modifier, or allow for quick-actions (hip firing, edging closer etc) or possibly other stuff.

- The first time a 'count-down' token is drawn, the player who is behind in points can then use that token for various things, such as reactivating a model, force an opponent to activate one of theirs or whatever (still fleshing this part out).

- When the second 'count-down' token is drawn, or when all other tokens have been drawn, the turn ends and victory points are counted up.

- As soon as one player gets to - say, 6 - victory points, the game ends at that point.

The main difference is that rather than tracking resources seperately, it is already included in the main mechanic and can give a small leg-up for the player who is behind, without going into minutiae.

The other thing that this system allows for, is easier multiplayer battle and the inclusion of random events; which again can be controlled by the player who's currently behind on points.

Oh, and it also gives me a push-your-luck mechanic that I'm quite fond of in the drawing/banking dynamic of chitpulling, making it suitable for solo-play as well

Try it and see what happens! That is the best way to find out how it works.

Edit: I believe Frostgrave used control of a random monster as a way to balance warbands on the table. The worse warband had control of a wandering monster to help off set the difference between warbands. Perhaps control of random dangers for the "losing" player would be fun?