Bias in gaming rules?

[Ivan Sorensen]

What are some examples you’ve found of bias in game rules and to what extent did it bother you?

Bias can take many forms: Units of one army may be rated more highly than most would agree (or rated below expectations), one side may be unfairly penalized and similar. It can take the form of descriptions and depictions (One side described as heroic and brave while the other is described as “the enemy”).

It could even take the case of political view points expressed in the game or in introductory text.

Some times biases are obvious and influence the game, in other cases the designer may be making a more honest game by stating them up front.

 

So share your stories, views and thoughts. What games have you seen that were biased and how did it affect you playing the game? When would an author’s bias influence your decision to buy or play?

What if the author is biased against the army you want to play? (I sort of imagine people playing anything but French might get this in Napoleonics a lot).

What if the author is biased politically in a way you disagree with?

 

Please keep the conversation pleasant.

[kyoteblue]

The nerfing of Russians in Flames Of War.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Judging from the stats given in a lot of WW2 games, you’d be surprised to learn that the Germans lost and the allies won 😉

[kyoteblue]

Yeap…

[willz]

Yes but the German uniforms are cooler and better tailored.  That’s got to be worth + 1 on a D6.

[ExtraCrispy]

What does “nerfing” mean? I play Soviet infantry and have done reasonably well with them…

[kyoteblue]

Nerfing to make something less deadly A nerf brick…Soviet Tanks central control so that if any move they all move. and take a penalty to shooting.. But Soviet Infantry if you can get some across the table are deadly.

[Bandit]

Empire is notorious for bias in the unit ratings but that is true of many Napoleonic rules. Frankly, unit ratings aren’t a reason in my mind as they are adjustable, easily by the players…

FoW’s main bias is that in design they fix any and all problems by seeking tournament balance so I would say they are bias towards tournaments over history.

Didn’t Fire & Fury provide a +1 for Confederates attacking because they were considered to have more élan? Similarly, Regimental Fire & Fury gives the CSA a benefit in who goes first doesn’t it?

Hard to say if many of these biases are invalid, frankly, I’d say they are all likely valid, just doesn’t mean I concur with them.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Maybe it ties into the general question of “historical ratings”. Were say, Russians better or worse soldiers man for man than Austrians or did they get deployed better or had better dice rolls? That sort of things.

Much as I love the game, I’d say Crossfire gets a little too pro-German.

[deephorse]

PanzerGrenadier Deluxe both helps and hinders various nationalities at different points in WWII.  The Germans have the best of it through most of the war, with the Western Allies coming back later on.  The Allies have more flexible indirect fire abilities too.  Is this bias or is it an attempt to reflect reality and different doctrine?

Play is what makes life bearable - Michael Rosen

[Fernando Darlington]

Most bias I’ve found was regarding tanks. Tanks not only are the masters of the battlefield but also have rules that allow them to mow mercilessly those pesky Poor Bloody Infantrymen that have survived the blast of their death-ray cannons (or for the matter anything bigger than a 75mm).

[Author]

Posts