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 was thinking about what made an action scene in a film compelling, what made a combat scene in an RPG exciting, and therefore what made a wargame interesting to play. Through this thinking, reading, researching, and analysis I came to one conclusion; Stakes.

I have some random thoughts here:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2024/04/wargame-design-all-sizzle-and-no-stakes.html

Is winning/dying the only stakes that matter in a tabletop wargame or is there something more to it? Is that enough to keep them compelling?

I come to the conclusion that ultimately, they are not. Avoiding dying/losing is just not compelling after a few battles. That becomes a baseline or expectation for game play. the question becomes, how do you make more compelling stakes for wargames?