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.

Kind of raised by this thread about Brutality Skirmish, but I got to thinking about the "Heartbreaker" idea mentioned in there.

For reference, Manchu was talking about this article: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

So, that got me thinking... when you're working on a game, how do you pick what kind of mechanics you use to resolve various things? E.g., how do you decide if you want to roll low or roll high? Or do you want opposed rolls, target numbers, etc.?

For myself, I tend to try to find some kind of "metaphor" that I'm using within the engine to capture the feel of the game, and find a mechanic that seems to fit that. For example, in one of my card games that was about Vikings hanging out in Valhalla who were trying to tell stories to one-up each other, I basically used a variation of "Cheat" (aka "Bluff" or "Bulls**t", the card game) because it not only was a simple mechanic, but the mechanic itself captured some of the feel.

Just curious how others approach "what kind of combat system do I want to have" and the like.

In my case its about coherency (not in the GNS sense of the term) and consistency. When it comes to numerical interaction, I prefer higher numbers = better, because psychologically speaking the vast majority of people are societally and psychologically pre-conditioned to the idea of "bigger = better". That doesn't mean lower = better can't work (the upcoming space game A Billion Suns uses this principal and works beautifully), but I personally have never successfully designed a system that takes advantage of it, because I inevitably hit a point in system logic where the thing I am trying to represent feels irrational and illogical being tied to a lower number and "reversing" the system logic to make sense with the lower number isn't feasible.

The key for me, however, is to maintain consistency - once I decide on higher = better, ALL mechanics need to maintain that standard. Cognitively speaking, there is a burden (however small it might be) that comes with having a player have to flip their perspective mid-stream from favoring higher numbers to favoring lower numbers, and back again - especially in games that rely on one standard for the majority of rolls and switch to the opposite for a small list of exceptions. 40k is a good example of this gone wrong, the majority of the game encourages higher numbers = better results, but every so often a mechanic, such as leadership tests, favors lower numbers. This is, in my view, poor design as it slows the game down and breaks the rhythm of play.

Likewise, consistency for me means that if you have a resolution mechanic, you should stick with it for the same reasons. I.E. if your system is based around opposed card flips (ala Malifaux), then you shouldn't have a rule that uses a d6 dice roll for resolution thrown in there for one arbitrary rule. Malifaux is a pretty good example of this at work, as (from what I recall), every resolution is based on the same card-flipping system/mechanic. X-Wing, Armada, and Legion are another good example - you're always rolling a number of dice of a certain color and looking for certain symbols to trigger resolution effects. Warmachine is, iirc, a bad example of this, because 90% of the mechanical resolutions revolve around a 2+d6 + stat vs target system, but there are a handful of arbitrary rules (Command checks, tough rolls) that rely on a 1d6 resolution instead. Its been a hot minute since I played 40k and I think some things have changed, but for the longest time 40k was likewise a bad example of this where 90% of the game revolved around rolling individual d6 (with the occasional d3) over a certain stat, but then also had a number of rules that instead resolved around 2d6 added together - but 40k is hardly the worst offender and to an extent this sort of thing is allowable even if it is less than ideal. If you play lots of obscure historical and indie games, however, you will inevitably bump into games which lean towards the simulation end of the spectrum that rely on a dozen or more different resolution mechanics - i.e. roll 2d6 vs target for one rule, roll 1d6 vs target for another rule, dice pooling mechanics for another rule, roll a d10 on a chart, roll d% on another chart,
and then roll opposed d20 roll for another rule. Every time the player needs to switch a resolution method is a moment of cognitive burden/mental overhead and a moment of delay that slows gameplay down and breaks immersion, as the player needs to suddenly think mechanically about what it is they are doing and how they need to proceed. To be clear - that doesn't mean that you can't use a variety of different dice, thats perfectly allowable (again see Armada and Legion for an example of this at work), it just means that the way those dice are being used needs to remain consistent - i.e. you can use a d8 for one roll, 3d6 for another, and a d20 for yet another - but they should always be resolved the same way, whether it be rolling against a target number or adding the values together and comparing to an opponents opposed roll, etc.

As for how I decide specifically on something, I do the same as you and try to tie the mechanics into the theme in some way. I feel games are most successful when the mechanical resolution fits within the "system logic" of whatever is being modeled. I.E. Warmachine works because the idea of a roll modified by a base stat representing a models "proficiency" needing to exceed an opponents counter-stat makes sense within the context of the fluff - the dice roll represents a bell-curve of the probability of success, which can be increased under certain circumstances in a logically consistent manner, and which is weighed by the characters own skill (as a swordsmen, for example) against an opponents skill at avoiding or dodging a thrust of the sword. Malifaux works even better, because it works on largely the same principals, BUT the use of cards ties into the setting in a manner evocative of a group of ne'er do wells and outlaws sitting around the table in a smokey saloon playing a game of poker - i.e. it works on multiple levels because it is both logical but also thematic/atmospheric.

Another thing I strive for is mechanics that emphasize player agency in the form of having to make meaningful decisions and impactful choices instead of the decision being largely arbitrary and subject to the whims of RNG (something that 40k is bad at), as well as mechanics that minimize bookkeeping and resolve quickly and meaningfully. Historical wargames are often bad for the latter, as their dedication to "realism" pushes them to focus extensively on resolving mechanics by rolling a handful of dice, rolling and re-rolling some more, then you consult a chart, which directs you to consult 3 more charts, roll a few more dice, and then consult another chart with the end result of all those steps of resolution being that you mark a box or two on a unit statsheet and then move on. You repeat this process a dozen more times over a half dozen turns before you finally reach a point where all that chart reading and box checking translates to something meaningful - the unit is destroyed, or flees from the battlefield, or is pinned and loses its next activation, etc. I prefer my mechanics to be as compact as possible and resolution light, deriving as much "information" as I need from as few dice rolls and chart lookups as possible, and whatever resolution I do make should have a more immediate impact than simply checking off a few boxes and waiting until you hit some magic threshold. In particular, I try to avoid, as much as possible, resolution mechanics which trigger further resolution mechanic - 40k is absolutely *awful* for this, the resolution of a to-hit roll is to-wound roll, which resolves into a saving throw, which finally resolves into the removal of a model. Its a *lot* of dice rolling, which translates to time wasted, in order to remove a couple models or knock a couple wounds off of a model.The newly previewed 9e morale rules are another example of this sort of horrible design - you make a morale roll which has a possibility of resolving into another "attrition" roll. Dice rolls triggering other dice rolls! Hurray! Fun!

On that note, with regards to "Heartbreakers", its not just a thing that applies to Fantasy RPGs, in the wargaming world theres a huge selection of games that are basically 40k Heartbreakers (Flames of War, Bolt Action, and countless others) which take the 40k "engine" and make small but often inconsequential modifications in an attempt to improve upon it/tune it for better performance. Space navy wargames often have the same problem as well, but instead of running on the 40k engine they usually run on the Full Thrust engine instead, etc. etc. etc.

Some great points there, chaos0xomega, and I completely agree on the cognitive dissonance of mixing roll high/roll low in mechanics. Occasionally, that might work, but it still does feel "off" in most cases.

Player agency is, I think, also a huge thing. I recently read a pretty interesting book on the importance of uncertainty/randomness (Uncertainty in Games by Greg Costikyan), but also how the type of uncertainty really makes an impact. Turns out, people don't like "pure randomness" (or "white noise"), but enjoy semi-predictable randomness with the occasional spike event ("pink noise"). Randomness isn't the only kind of uncertainty, however, and including other forms, such as analytic complexity or the need to read your opponent (such as in Poker or any bluffing game) add a lot.

I think also that offering players some way of mitigating what is otherwise pure randomness is important. Whether that's allowing bonuses due to positioning, re-rolls, or whatever doesn't matter; the key is offering players choices, as you say. I've read that Sid Meier has said that "a game is a series of interesting choices." I believe that's got a lot of merit, and if there aren't many choices to be made, regardless of how clever or "elegant" your mechanics might be, it isn't an interesting game. And who has time to play boring games?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding Heartbreakers, too, wondering just how much tweaking do you think is needed in order to not just be a Heartbreaker? I mean, I think any of us who have played games for any period of time are likely to take inspiration from those we've played, and when it comes down to it, there really are only so many ways to deal with rolling dice.

Is it a volume of changes, or quality of changes? The point about making "inconsequential tweaks" is a good one, but is a system which is, say, 90% the same as some other system but that 10% difference is significant in promoting the theme/balance/whatever, is that still a Heartbreaker, or an iterative improvement?

Edwards makes this point, that a heartbreaker isn’t just a set of what you’re calling tweaks because he feels conflicted about encouraging indie efforts and then criticizing what people actually come up. So he insists that heartbreakers are more than house rules because they always contain some gem of an idea. This might have made him feel better but I’m not sure it’s true — which of course calls into question just what a heartbreaker really is. For Edwards, it’s his heart, the heart of the person receiving someone else’s rule set, that gets broken because he thinks it conveys this really good idea that is tragically buried in junk. For me, the issue is that it’s the person who wrote the rules whose heart will get broken because the thing they have spent so much effort on will just not be compelling to anyone else really.

The truth is that everyone who writes games writes heartbreakers. But for some people, the heartbreaker is just a first draft. For others, it ends up as their final draft. I think the difference is a moment of self-awareness, probably as a result of honest feedback or because the writer is making an effort to keep abreast of what has already been developed and is being developed in the space he’s working in.

I really like playing ultra low model count miniatures games. I have helped make one recently and was encouraged to publish it. But all it consisted of was a deconstruction and rebuilding of a published game (by an indie writer/publisher) to meet the very specific desires that my group had at a certain moment. If for whatever reason I did not possess the self-awareness to understand this and went ahead and tried to publish it, I’d end up making a heartbreaker. On the other hand, if I was serious about doing something with it, I would need to basically start from scratch design-wise; all i could take forward from what I had previously made is a somewhat better idea of the goal than I previously had. But no amount of further tweaking of that “game” as it currently exists would lead to anything but a heartbreaker.

The truth is that everyone who writes games writes heartbreakers. But for some people, the heartbreaker is just a first draft.

This is true. I think all my game designs have started out as a mod of someone elses game on the first draft, and then I basically tear down and redesign the entire game from the ground up around the new mechanics I added in (which often means that the new mechanics themselves end up being redesigned to work with the new "engine"). Personally, I highly value innovation in game design (cue "innovation is overrated" and "there is nothing new under the sun" nonsense I often see in discussions about game design), and I don't really see any value in regurgitating or re-synthesizing someone elses game. There are enough people out there already doing exactly that (and being quite commercially successful at it in the process), the world doesn't need yet another hack doing the same damned thing.

Innovation IS overrated. There I said it for you ChaosxOmega.

Wargames that are really innovative fail because they scare away players with the unfamiliar who psychologically perceive it as hard to learn/remember. Think about how many games are simply DBX or Warhammer with Tweaks!

The points Chaos raised about consistency are very compelling and align with my thought process. However, I will say something very controversial:

Mechanics do not matter. They are simply an outcome generator.

If mechanics do not matter, then what does matter? What matters the most is your game's hook(s). This is what differentiates it from all the other games on the market. The hook could be mechanics based, but there are many different hooks out there. They could be genre hooks, theme hooks, Concept hooks, Look hooks, etc. Ideally, you should have more than 1 hook.

The hook is what drives players to want to play the game, typically not the mechanics themselves.

To me, you avoid Heartbreakers by focusing on the Hooks and not the Mechanics.

The volume of games out there that are simply DBX or Warhammer with tweaks is massive, the volume of truly *popular* games that are simply DBX or Warhammer with tweaks is really very small - a literal handful - and the volume of good games that are simply DBX or Warhammer, with or without tweaks, is non-existent ;P (I jest, mostly).

I disagree with most of your Easy E's response. Correlation doesn't equal causation, nor does non-innovation equal ease of understanding. I would argue that most attempts at innovation in the Wargame and RPG arenas over the past 10-20 or so years have failed because they simply aren't good OR they masquerade excessive complexity as innovation (or a number of other reasons not related to their innovation in any meaningful way).

The current crop of the most popular games in the wargame and rpg arena's were themselves once innovative for their time, or are based on an underlying "engine" that was at some point innovative. Theres a reason why games like 40k, X-Wing, etc. don't require a slide rule, protractor, and a degree in physics, engineering, or mathematics to play like older wargames did - innovation. To say that innovation automatically fails is - simply put - historically incorrect, ESPECIALLY when you look at older generations of game which were incredibly dense and challenging to understand, and *actually* hard to learn/remember.

And mechanics absolutely do matter. Warmachine was briefly (one of) the most popular wargame on the market, in large part because of the mechanics - it wasn't particularly innovative mind you as the 2d6 + stat vs target number had been around in some form or another for years but never really picked up in popularity, and nothing about the mechanics would constitute a "hook" in and of itself. The actual "hook" (continuing fluff and character development) had effectively been abandoned by Privateer Press by the time the games popularity began to spike, and the mini sculpts weren't (and still aren't) particularly great, but the game still became popular because the game was mechanically tight. Unfortunately the game had a number of external issues weighing it down that caused it to implode upon itself basically at its peak, but regardless the point stands. Either way, the point is that mechanics count for something, maybe not everything, but for something.

"Hooks", ultimately, are just a polite way of saying gimmick, and gimmicks do not really make for successful games (at least not in the long term). I would argue that 40k doesn't have a gimmick/hook, nor do X-Wing or Legion (unless you count "Star Wars" as a hook I guess?). D&D doesn't really have a gimmick/hook either, nor does Pathfinder or the other popular RPG engines. Yet these are still some of the most popular games on the market in their respective categories. But they are as they are because they each have their own je ne sais quoi qualities that have made them titans (lets be real, its pretty much the IP/franchises behind the games, aside from Pathfinder which is popular as a result of WOTC bungling D&D 4E).

And if you look at the bigger picture across the industry, you will see that the broader tabletop gaming industry *IS* being driven by innovation - the most popular board games over the past few years have been innovators. RPGs have seen a few really innovative systems pop up over the past few years that have picked up steam (Blades in the Dark and its offspring, for one), wargaming seems to lag behind, in large part because its cost intensive and thus harder for new games to break into the market, and also because psychologically I think a large chunk of the wargaming audience tends to be more conservatively-minded (not in the political sense) - but that doesn't mean innovative games haven't popped up and been successful.

Gaslands is a fairly mechanically innovative ruleset and has been wildly successful. The upcoming game A Billion Suns, from the same designer, is even moreso and looks like it might well be be just as successful. Malifaux has achieved a fair degree of popularity and has a number of innovative rules and mechanics likewise. A Song of Ice and Fire has some innovative mechanics and has seen skyrocketing popularity as well.

Innovation and mechanics might not be the end all be all, but they *do* matter, especially *good* innovations and mechanics.

Some great replies, folks, thanks for an interesting discussion!

I think Manchu hit it on the head that most games from us indie designers do start out as a "heartbreaker" in that we usually start by tweaking some other system (I know I'm definitely guilty of that). That self-reflection of looking at it, and knowing that leading you to continue to develop is probably a good indicator that you're at least trying to avoid just pushing out some shovelware.

(Unrelated, I think that there is a good amount of shovelware style wargames coming out, where it isn't much more than a re-skinned version of some other game...)

Innovation's a tricky one, I think. And I think that there's two areas where innovation could apply: the mechanics or the "hook" (setting, theme, whatever). I think even Easy E might agree that the "hook" needs some innovation--after all, if you're just doing "another generic fantasy game" then what is the hook? I agree that the game needs to offer something different (aka innovative) to have some appeal, whether that's in the art style, the theme, or whatever.

Innovation in mechanics is more dangerous, I think. Do you need to come up with some new way of rolling dice? Probably not. But if you do have an innovative way of dealing with some kind of resolution system that fits your intended purpose (whether that's "faster playing," "more realistic," or trying to play off of a theme within your setting), that, I think, is gold. Tossing in some new way of doing something just to be different, though, I think where innovation for innovation's sake gives it a bad name.

I think another place innovation can really come to the front is in the ways you might combine simpler mechanics into a more interesting resolution/modeling system. You can definitely go too far here (c.f. Campaign for North Africa), but it's something I do consciously look at.

And I think, too, that too much innovation is definitely harmful. Let's face it, all miniature wargames have certain "traditions" in them, and players of these kinds of games expect some of them to be present. Things like measured movement on non-gridded play areas (whether that's free inches/cm or movement templates), some kind of RNG for combat resolution (dice, cards), and several others. If you don't include at least a few of those tropes, then you're probably going to alienate some of your target audience if your target is "traditional miniature wargame players."

Things like measured movement on non-gridded play areas (whether that's free inches/cm or movement templates)

Quite a few games over the years (Rogue Planet being one of the more recent examples i can think of), including many older ones, that didn't feature any sort of measured movement (or for that matter, range).

some kind of RNG for combat resolution (dice, cards)

Many early wargames were purely deterministic, either on a fixed rock, paper, scissors spectrum, or were simulationist in their approach (i.e. tank xyz fires an armor piercing shell from x inches away, this table indicates the shell has y mm of armor penetration. The target tank xyz has z mm of armor, which increases to z1 based on this chart due to the incident angle between the tanks armor and the incoming projectile), or were determined by an umpires call (who may use RNG in making the decision, consult charts and tables, or just make an educated ruling).

I really cannot stress enough how much the current status quo of wargaming mechanics - that you call "traditional" - are in fact a relatively recent innovations (i.e. late 70s/80s vintage) innovations compared to what the early commercial wargames of the 50s and 60s were like). Hell, even a bloated dinosaur of a game like Battletech (which at this point hasn't really changed much in 30-40 years) was once an innovative sleek modern ruleset compared to some of the other games that came before it.

Fair point. I think the "traditional" stuff I referred to was more for the more recent (20 years) bits of the genre. Certainly, there was a time that those were themselves innovations and breaking the established mold. Heck, we might be on the cusp of that again.

I think, though, that if you're wanting to make a "miniatures wargame" for the current market, there are probably a few things you "need" to include, because a lot of the market "expects" them. That said, though, that shouldn't be an excuse for just churning out cookie cutter systems, in my opinion. I'm not saying don't be creative, just that for the modern market you might have to make some concessions, while at the same time pushing some innovations. Then again, since there hasn't really been a giant jump in design in that market (unlike the 70s/80s as you mention), maybe we're due for one?

Easy E makes a really good point about hooks. The hooks are what will get people to even look at your game. A game that is about something you’re interested in will beat out a game that isn’t, regardless of the relative strengths of their mechanics.

This is why generic systems (similar to but not quite the same as “miniatures agnostic” systems), such as Open Combat, don’t get a lot of attention whereas a game like Frostgrave, which is steeped in its theme, can become really popular. TBH, the mechanics of the latter are not particularly ingenious; but as the author himself has explained, building them around a d20 added a “flavor” of roleplaying. This is a great example, I think, of what Easy E calls a hook. But FG is filled with hooks: the mysterious city of Felstad, the ambitions of treasure hunting wizards, the treacherous arctic environment, etc.

That said, I really disagree that mechanics don’t matter. So let’s look at Brutality. Although it is miniatures agnostic, far moreso than Frostgrave or Open Combat (in that you can mix sci fi figures with fantasy ones), it has a pretty unique conceit as to its setting. The goddess Ishtar transports mortals from across the multiverse to an island where they eternally struggle to curry her favor. The author didn’t like how in other miniatures games characters were defeated on the battlefield only to show up in the next game — well, did they die or not? So he made up a setting to explain why players could bring the same characters to the table again and again. And, so far as I can see, he kept adding and adding to what he imagined that world to be like until he had factions and regions and so forth to the point where he now has a pretty thoroughly worked out setting. Nonetheless, it comes up as utterly opaque to me. So, at least as far as I’m concerned, no hooks there. So we turn to the mechanics ...

I agree that Hooks are totally important. And, honestly, something completely arbitrary as far as what a "successful" hook might be. For some folks, theme/setting is the main hook, and they don't care at all about mechanics. For others, the mechanics themselves are the Hook. And of course, there's everything in between.

So would it be a Heartbreaker to just re-skin an existing set of mechanics, especially if said mechanics were solid? Or, on the other side, would taking an existing setting (e.g. 40k) and just reworking all of the mechanics be a Heartbreaker?

And, like mentioned above, a Heartbreaker to whom?

Reskins aren’t usually published so that is more like house rules (playing “Dustgrave” rather than Frostgrave).

 Manchu wrote:
a game like Frostgrave, which is steeped in its theme

Is it, though? Frostgraves theme exists to disguise the fact that its generic while still being as generic as generic gets. Frostgraves theme might as well be three dwarves in a trench coat - everyone knows theres something off about the guy but they're too polite to point it out and just play along with the farce.

On that note - Saga is a generic game in a generic setting, its also pretty popular despite that - I would argue because of the somewhat innovative mechanics relating to the faction battleboards.

Depends on what you consider reskins. Ganesha Games has a ton of variants of A Song of Blades and Heroes. Blitzkrieg Commander has variants for the Cold War and Sci-Fi. Those are the few that came to mind. Although, reskins seem to occur quite often in board games.

FG is super thematic, but I will concede that its particular theme is not very unique (generic fantasy in cold weather). The theme itself being generic is a separate issue from whether the game is built around that theme.

Good example regarding Saga. That is a case of mechanics as hook.

Yes, mechanics can be a hook. However, the key is to give your game multiple hooks. A mechanics hook alone will work with other designers, but probably not gamers. After all, the best selling wargame in the world has terrible mechanics. Why, because it has other hooks like theme, genre, concept, look, etc.

Let me elaborate on why Mechanics do not matter. The mechanic is not the end result or even the outcome. It is simply a tool to get the outcome that you wish to generate in order to hit your design goals. Any mechanic will do, whether is rolling a dice, flipping a card, referencing a chart, or hitting it with a coin. Does it get you closer to the outcomes you want to meet your design goals?

Instead, a designer should think about what they what their game to do, and then choose some way to get there. The way to get there is less important than knowing where you want to go.

For example, let's say you want to make a horror game. The design goal is to create a sense of horror in the game. How you do that is the mechanic and that could be any number of options such as limited visibility, rapidly appearing monsters, difficulty in hurting the enemy, picking between bad choices, threat ratings, etc. How the mechanics interact is all about creating the outcomes you need to hit your design goal. The specifics of the mechanics are secondary or irrelevant.

I only have a high level knowledge of Saga. However, the initial design goal was to create Viking/Dark Age skirmish combat that makes each faction relevant. How do you do that? In this case the mechanic was a tool to create the design goal. They could have just as easily used a card deck of options, dice charts, or simple Stat+Roll to do it.

I have no idea if I am making sense, but the more I design games the less interested I am in mechanics and the more I am in achieving design goals.

You come across as arguing that mechanics are important, just not in and of themselves.

A friend of mine with some game design education explained to me that mechanics exist to generate dynamics which in turn generate aesthetics. This is called the MDA framework. Yes, we ultimately want the desired aesthetics, i.e., the player experience. But we have to think about how we’re going to get there, which leads us back to mechanics.

 Easy E wrote:
the more I design games the less interested I am in mechanics and the more I am in achieving design goals.

While I'm significantly less accomplished than you are (lets be real, I cosplay at being a game designer as opposed to actually designing games, lol), all my interest in game design for the past 10+ years has revolved less in achieving design goals and more around exploring specific mechanics in order to see what the end result of their implementation is.

In retrospect, this probably explains a lot about why it is I've started so many projects and finished precisely none of them. I'm not really a game designer, I'm a mechanic designer - the game is just a vehicle/excuse and a thematic inspiration that guides my process. I intend, of course, to eventually form these mechanics together into a complete game experience, and I design the mechanics to interface with one another in a cohesive way (I'm very much a "big picture"/holistic view type person, and typically not overly concerned with fine details), but at the end of the day I am trying to get the individual mechanics perfect more than I am trying to get the game finished.

 Manchu wrote:
You come across as arguing that mechanics are important, just not in and of themselves.

A friend of mine with some game design education explained to me that mechanics exist to generate dynamics which in turn generate aesthetics. This is called the MDA framework. Yes, we ultimately want the desired aesthetics, i.e., the player experience. But we have to think about how we’re going to get there, which leads us back to mechanics.

Yeah, that was a bit of a circular argument wasn't it! To be entirely truthful, I used an extreme statement to generate and continue a discussion.

I think the overall point is similar to what you said, do not let our designer obsession with mechanics to obscure what we are trying to accomplish in game. Players typically do not care about mechanics as much as WE care about mechanics. The want a fun game experience and what creates that is an entirely different thread.

Now, I am still not sure I 100% understand what a Heartbreaker is yet as it sounds pretty subjective to the person doing the review. For example, many of my designs are as derivative as all get-out when you look at the individual mechanics. it is easy to identify where I pulled various mechanics from various games and applied them to a new theme or genre. Does that make them a Heartbreaker? Or is it a Heartbreaker when the mechanics themselves do not mesh well enough together to make a compelling whole for the game that is intended?

I have a feeling it is closer to the second. So, I think Chaosxomegas first post really is critical to avoiding Heartbreaker mechanics.

I have to admit, the smart alec in me is wanting to create a game called Heartbreaker that is nothing more than a thinly veiled reskin of some other game with random tweaks that add nothing to the gameplay...

I think the point that players care about mechanics only insofar as they help evoke the play experience is pretty valid, and 100% agree that as designers, we should be using mechanics that help get us to the target player experience we were hoping to create.

Or is it a Heartbreaker when the mechanics themselves do not mesh well enough together to make a compelling whole for the game that is intended?

This is the definition I'm starting to lean towards as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ork-en Man wrote:
Depends on what you consider reskins. Ganesha Games has a ton of variants of A Song of Blades and Heroes. Blitzkrieg Commander has variants for the Cold War and Sci-Fi. Those are the few that came to mind. Although, reskins seem to occur quite often in board games.

This is a good point, and I'm actually going to go so far as to say I don't consider publishing a reskin of one of your own games to really be a Heartbreaker. Why? ASOBAH is a good example; that's a pretty unique system, and a hallmark of the author, so I feel them making new settings, essentially, but using the same mechanics is ok. For the most part. That said, though, I do think one of Filigoi's publications, through Osprey, is a Heartbreaker: Rogue Stars. This mostly uses the ASOBA system, but switched to using a d20 (which didn't really add anything), and added a ton of charts of modifiers and so on. To me, this didn't do anything but make what was essentially a fast playing and interesting system into a cumbersome slog. (Again, to me; that's my opinion and I understand there are folks out there that really like this one, and that's fine.)

I'm actually going to go so far as to say I don't consider publishing a reskin of one of your own games to really be a Heartbreaker.

I agree. The underlying mechanics of a tabletop game form a "game engine", in the same way that video games are built on a game engine. Tweaking your own game engine to get variable results is, in my mind, your right as a creator and part of the exploration of that engines design limitations, etc. Under the definition of "Heartbreaker", the fact that you created your own engine, by default, means that your game is not a Heartbreaker, nor are any other games that you produce using variations of that engine - but if someone else uses your engine then THAT game is potentially (probably) a heartbreaker.

BTW, theres a sequel essay regarding heartbreakers, workblocked at the moment but maybe something worth reading/disccusing: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/10/

For me, Edwards’s use of the term is too narrow to be very useful in the context of miniatures games. I posted his original article in the other thread just so anyone who was interested could see where the term originated. That said, I don’t think questions of house rulings and reskins and so forth are all that important.

The heartbreaker, as I see it in terms if miniatures gaming, is pretty simple: it’s a game someone makes that is really just for themselves (and maybe also their little group of friends) but they mistake it for something that anyone else would find worthwhile.

So the real question is, what makes a game worthwhile to a broader audience and not just to the circle of the author?

 Manchu wrote:

So the real question is, what makes a game worthwhile to a broader audience and not just to the circle of the author?

That is a great question. And if we can come up with a solid answer for what will give a game mass appeal (and thus, hopefully, sales), we'll all be super happy.

That magic sauce, that hook, that makes a hit is super elusive.

We aren’t talking about anything so grand as making a hit! We just want the product of our efforts to appeal to and be useful to other hobbyists, outside of our immediate circles.

 Manchu wrote:
We aren’t talking about anything so grand as making a hit! We just want the product of our efforts to appeal to and be useful to other hobbyists, outside of our immediate circles.

About the only thing I can think of there is that we need to engage outside our inner circles, too. Whether that's as an observer to see "what do people like," or more active by throwing out our own babies to be brutalized by public playtesting (which, honestly, we should do).

I think we can gather some of that info just from watching trends. Like, right now, solo and co-op is a big thing, which means it might have more appeal. At the same time, though, the danger with trend hopping is that it can quickly end and then you get the "ugh, another of these kinds of games..."

it’s a game someone makes that is really just for themselves (and maybe also their little group of friends) but they mistake it for something that anyone else would find worthwhile.

I like that, but i think its true of the actual fantasy heartbreakers that Edwards was describing.

Yes but he means something a bit more specific, which I think is less helpful is this context.

 Manchu wrote:

The heartbreaker, as I see it in terms if miniatures gaming, is pretty simple: it’s a game someone makes that is really just for themselves (and maybe also their little group of friends) but they mistake it for something that anyone else would find worthwhile.

So the real question is, what makes a game worthwhile to a broader audience and not just to the circle of the author?

Again, I find myself being a bit of a contrarian. I see no point in trying to figure out what other gamers want to play, because I have determined I have no idea what other people want to play. I look at many popular game systems and wonder why people are playing it.

Instead, I tend to make games I want to play and if other people want to play it then "Bully" for them. My audience is me, and if I am happy to play it then I am pretty happy. I know I have specific biases and preferences that inform all of my works. I do not know if other gamers really like the same things as I do, I assume some do and some don't. I don't try to design for people that aren't me because I have no idea what they want out of their games. I do have a pretty good idea of what I want out of a game though.

That said, I completely agree with the idea that you need to constantly be exposing yourself to new ways of doing things and different approaches. This exposure is what gives you perspective into the different tools you can put in your tool box. Looking at how other games do things is what helps me create my biases and preferences in order to design games. For example, I understand the appeal of using card mechanics and building a hand to play. I see the value of it and how it can be a great tool for creating decision making and choice in a game. However, I personally do not like it as a design mechanic due to my biases. I would not know that if I only stayed in my own design bubble.

Perhaps, worrying about creating a "Heartbreaker" is just not worth thinking about? Just build games and get people to play them?

I don't know.....

 Valander wrote:
I have to admit, the smart alec in me is wanting to create a game called Heartbreaker that is nothing more than a thinly veiled reskin of some other game with random tweaks that add nothing to the gameplay...

I think this idea is hilarious! However, it might be too obscure of a reference for most people to get "the joke".