What Do You Want In A Rule Set?

[Lagartija Mike]

Fun is the answer, but what makes it fun for you? Myself, I enjoy very detailed rules that sacrifice speed for flavor, I’m happy to take a day (or longer) to realize a large battle, willing to spend months on a campaign. The more subtly distinguished troop types, morale, training and equipment the better. Ideally a unit should in many respects express itself like a player character in a RPG.

Yourself?

[Paul]

More or less the opposite of you most of the time: speed of play is paramount for me. I need to be able to set up the table after the kid goes to bed, throw some units on the table, and get to a resolution within 2 to 3 hours. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy all-day battles, but in reality very rarely get to play them.

Also, solo mechanics are important for the “quick and dirty” games, unimportant for bigger, longer games which I dont play solo. That is why most of my gaming lately is with Two Hour Wargames rulesets.

Those are brave men knocking at our door. Let's go kill them!

[Sparker]

I don’t mind plenty of detail and granularity as long as all that is pushed to the pre-game preparations – during the actual game I want to be concentrating on tactics and orders, not administering the rules. So a set of rules where all the flavour that makes that era, that campaign, that battle, emerges in the troops stats and special rule selection for that game, that can all be chosen and calculated and balanced beforehand. Then the minimum of rules effort or thought during the actual game, and most of what is required concentrating on C2.

During the game, I want my thought processes concentrating on tactics, and my social interaction on working within the team, not paging through charts or arguing over details of move sequences or bookkeeping…

Now that the Hail Caesar – Black Powder stable of rules sets has enabled this, I am going to struggle with any other rulesets.

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Lagartija Mike]

Sparker, unrelated but as a metal worker by trade I got a big f’n kick out of your Ersatz Bergepanther.

[irishserb]

I think that I’m looking for much the same thing as the OP.  I want lots of detail, which doesn’t mean lots of rules.  Not looking for overly simple, fast play rules.

[grizzlymc]

Hyper detailed rules covering combat, morale, troop quality, terrain, C3, and rivet counting hardware on a single sheet of paper.  Uproariously fun, a perfect simulation of the subject and adaptable for large and small games.  Oh, and no damned photos!

[Not Connard Sage]

grizzlymc wrote:

Hyper detailed rules covering combat, morale, troop quality, terrain, C3, and rivet counting hardware on a single sheet of paper. Uproariously fun, a perfect simulation of the subject and adaptable for large and small games. Oh, and no damned photos!

 

You’ll be wanting Challenger 2000 then.

 

Want to buy my copy..?

 

Please?

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[grizzlymc]

More than 1 page

[Not Connard Sage]

grizzlymc wrote:

More than 1 page

Don’t be so picky.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Spurious]

I am pretty damn picky when it comes to rules. I’d get far more games if I were not but I can’t help it. Thankfully there’s a lot of really good, even great systems out there these days so really I’ve just whittled down my options and decided against going for a happy mediocrity. Better to be a bit of a rules snob rather than waste time and money on something less fulfilling I guess? At least that’s what I keep telling myself… Anyway, in no particular order:

Something with mechanics that don’t just use a single type of roll for everything. A turn system that is either very fast or allows for a good bit of back&forth between players so there’s no long waiting periods of doing nothing. Not using True-line-of-sight. Consistent abstractions. Detail that allows for use of it without having to work through it (not having to worry so much about exact distances, a pile of situational modifiers that need to be remembered and tracked). Some chart referencing is ok but it’s best if a game can be played with just a quick reference sheet, which goes back into consistent abstractions, being able to grok what an author is getting at with the game and accurately guess how a system works without referencing the full text is a brilliant time-saver and the mark of a well designed and written system. I guess it can be said that I am results-orientated in preferences. Being able to have an effect on the battle through means other than simply removing models, accounting for the people (or creatures/machines) wielding armaments as much as or more than just the armaments themselves in terms of how effective they may be.

A good bit of ‘character’ in how a force operates being built into the mechanics through what is restricted/enabled helps a lot; under-supplied irregular troops shouldn’t be operating under the same factors as well-supplied professional soldiers, disciplined, experienced regiments of pikemen should not be functionally the same as an angry mob that has happened to get a bunch of long sticks.

A little hard to describe this next one; I don’t like it if I can look at a pair of armies on the table, how they’re set up, and solidly predict the result of the game barring any wild swings of dice rolls because there isn’t any opportunity after that part to change the result through what the players do with their armies. I like things to be able to go wrong for both sides whilst playing, a good bit of battlefield chaos adds a lot to the proceedings, but it shouldn’t inhibit a player from being able to do anything  as it is really not fun failing a roll and having your opponent get 2 turns in a row without any ability to act/react.

As I said, I’m picky 

[Mike]

Quick and easy.

I have noticed that as I age my concentration is going.
So simple and short.

Not too many charts, not too many modifiers.
Core mechanics that are picked up after about 3 turns.
A QRS that is one sheet.

I want the core mechanics to be simple but flexible enough that I can add my own troop types and they will fit into the system without any glaring problems.

Solo play too, so some sort of fog of war or activation system that could mean not all troops always doing something.

Pretty much what Paul said.

[Don Glewwe]

Rules are what you make of them, aren’t they?  Too complex? …dump the detail that bothers you.  Too fast? …add a bit of colloquial this-n-that to account for the detail that you and yours deem important.  Jeez…who’s holding a gun to your head?

 

PS- I’m tempted by the offer for “Challenger 2000”, just cuz I’ve heard it talked of so much.  ; )

[Sparker]

I used to be pretty free and easy with dumping detail and adding ‘house rules’, but I’ve found that it can have unintended consequences, to the point where a series of ‘fixes’ will bring you back around to the original ruleset – at that point you have to dump the rules!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Patrice]

RPG, speed, flavor, and fun…

 

Lagartija Mike wrote:

sacrifice speed for flavor

Oh no, I want both!

 

Lagartija Mike wrote:

Ideally a unit should in many respects express itself like a player character in a RPG

Yes. But in a RPG a player has only one character.

If each unit is a RPG PC, it’s appealing but you are sure to lose a lot of time.

Or you must find a gaming system which allows it.

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[Sparker]

Sparker, unrelated but as a metal worker by trade I got a big f’n kick out of your Ersatz Bergepanther

Thanks mate, very kind. Its actually very hard to render the look of a hard working, well bashed workshop vehicle!

(So if you have any tips on how to get that authentic look, please pass on in a fresh post!)

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[McLaddie]

I used to be pretty free and easy with dumping detail and adding ‘house rules’, but I’ve found that it can have unintended consequences, to the point where a series of ‘fixes’ will bring you back around to the original ruleset – at that point you have to dump the rules!

Yep. If a system has been tightly designed and playtested, it is hard to see all the consequences of any additions without more serious playtesting.

I like different game systems for different reasons and different fun.  So what I want from all rules sets is for the rules:

1. To be well written and organized–easy to understand.

2. Do what the designer says they will do.

 

[Mr. Average]

I generally can find something to like in just about any game system, I think, and like different types of game for different reasons. So for me it’s a matter of what headspace I’m in when I play. For example, I love Battletech for its granularity and how specific and flavorful it feels as a simulation. But I also like Future War Commander for its speed and ease of play and its handling of very large forces, and Dirtside for its fairly balanced blending of the two. I like Ogre because it’s super fast and traditional, and I like Striker because it requires such careful thought and really “feels” like you’re commanding individual men on the battlefield. Does that make sense? I hope so.

[Lagartija Mike]

As much as I dislikes the Battletech milieu, I’ve always enjoyed the rules. Could use more weapon types tho’ and that whole Clan thing needs to be jettisoned into empty space.

[Phil Dutré]

1. Immersion, and 2. Elegant mechanics and design.

Immersion is when you enter the zone of “suspension of disbelief”. I want a game to create the feeling that you are actually present on the battlefield, that every action you take is not simply “rolling dice”, but that feel you are actually commanding your troops, manoeuvring your battalions, shooting your cannon. It is hard to achieve, and it more a matter of taste than anything else, but I do belief a good ruleset can bring the player into that zone. Prerequisite is that the mechanics feel natural and have some meaning outside the gaming engine. Every mechanic should have a good equivalent meaning on the battlefield.

Elegant mechanics is when the rules are designed around a few common mechanics that tie in together very well. It is rather easy to design rules with mechanics for movement, melee, shooting and morale, which are all different subsystems with no common ground. E.g. for shooting you roll D6 vs. a target number, for morale you roll a D100 on a table, each of these with an endless list of modifiers etc. That is lousy game design.

A well designed ruleset can blend these subsystems into a single coherent gaming engine, where the subsystems work together, rather than being seperate consecutive and independent phases during the turn. Roleplaying games have gone much farther in this, e.g. skill-based systems such as the BRP (Call of Cthulhu, Runequest), where every action (whether it is talking, fighting, searching, …) in essence is a d100 roll vs. a skill number.

The main advantage of such a well-designed set is that the players develop an intuition of how the rules work, rather than having to look up every single rule. Sure, after many games you will know the rules by heart, but with incoherent rulesets, there is no underlying logic to interpret situations. Welld esigned rulesets provide players a framework to add, manipulate, adjust, interpret the rules themselves, exactly because they see and feel the common design fundamentals.

[Lagartija Mike]

Can a rule set that doesn’t address the Prussian spontoon enigma be considered truly playable? No one has even considered the effect of palmsweat on the finish. We have many miles to go before we sleep.

[Angel Barracks]

Lagartija Mike wrote:

We have many miles to go before we sleep.

I sleep soundly knowing that rules I use, fulfil every criteria I have.

😀

[Lagartija Mike]

Yes, AB. But can your rules be used as a functional boat anchor? Mine can!

 

Mass Matters!

[Angel Barracks]

[DM]

Meanwhile,  outside the twilight zone…..  🙂

[Lagartija Mike]

Theban Sacred Band get a +3 to impact dislodgement morale rolls in Twilight Zone conditions only if terrain perturbation status is “Lavender” or “Lincoln Green”. Chartreuse disqualifies unless in under three octagons proximity to a unit of Phokian Xystophoroi with pince nez and Thessalian cravat upgrades.

[Otto Schmidt]

Rules should be like the owners manual to a toaster or washing machine. Something your read once or twice and then stuff into a drawer somewhere and forget about  because you know how to do it. This means simple rules. It doesn’t mean stupid rules. Rules can be quite simple and easy but yield complex scenarios and situations.  My own rules for rules is what I call the 12/12.  12 pages single spaced, 12 point times roman bold all rules, diagrams, charts, illustrations, photos, and designer drivel must bit into the 12 plages, including cover art and masthead or you get out the red pen and start slashing.

Of the published rules, Moreschauser is the acme.

 

[Author]

Posts