Design Rambling
Design Rambling
There are fine lines between:
elegant and boring
&
detailed and confusing
Seems like the proper balance between these adjectives is what I’m always looking at when reading a set of rules, RPG or wargame.
I read a review of Horizon Wars that’s main complaint was that it was too generic. I can see coming from a game like Battletech and flipping through the book wondering where the lists of weapons and equipment was. Instead Horizon Wars has a single stat for Firepower and it makes zero difference what weapons give it that number.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Weapons_and_Equipment_Lists#Inner_Sphere_Weapons_and_Equipment
There are fine lines between:
elegant and boring
&
detailed and confusing
Seems like the proper balance between these adjectives is what I’m always looking at when reading a set of rules, RPG or wargame.
I read a review of Horizon Wars that’s main complaint was that it was too generic. I can see coming from a game like Battletech and flipping through the book wondering where the lists of weapons and equipment was. Instead Horizon Wars has a single stat for Firepower and it makes zero difference what weapons give it that number.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Weapons_and_Equipment_Lists#Inner_Sphere_Weapons_and_Equipment
While working on GRIDSHOCK's weapon chart it briefly felt strange to have abstracted entries like "revolver" and "blaster rifle" rather than Ruger Redhawk .357 Magnum and SAL-9 Variable Pulse Rifle listed. Then I remembered that this was not a game where weapon selection was supposed to be a focus. (There are even fewer armor types, because it's not a game where everybody is supposed to be running around wearing armor.)
ReplyDeleteIt's important to know what's important.
I took one look at the linked info and glazed over. No thanks.
ReplyDeleteI talked with Sean McCoy about this the other day. Some things are setting specific, but usually a wide range of weapon 'type' hits the mark for me.
ReplyDeleteThere are brains that love the depth, but if you're aiming for a wider audience simpler is better. Introduce that deep dive shit in a splatbook- you know your real fans will buy those right up.
Yeah I think I agree with Jarrett Crader I think like the b/x list of weapons is about the level of granularity I want in a core rulebook. But I like my modules to introduce new weapons armor and spells etc. even if mechanically they’re the same, having new color (or like brand and model names in terms of guns) helps me world build.
ReplyDeleteSomething that needs to be remembered with Battletech is that it started simple: MG, Flamer, AC5, 4 sizes of LRM, 3 sizes of SRM, 3 sizes of Laser, and the PPC. As time wore on that list got expanded to the point of crazy bloat, yet players used to that bloat were complaining about there being too little weapon variety in the HBS computer games, which is set in 3025, back when it was that original simple list (plus 3 other sizes of AC). So really, its all perspective.
ReplyDeleteHere's how I like my gun porn. Lots of names and drawings, but boiled down to the major types. Subtle differences between two types of auto-cannons or whatever don't interest me. It's like listing 20 different pistols for Call of Cthulhu. Whatever. That's just 20 ways to ineffectively shoot an old one. If the subtle differences don't matter, leave them for flavor. If they do matter, it's probably not the game for me.
ReplyDeleteI don't even mean just weapons, although the classic polearm list fits in the overcomplicated category. Also the difference between B/Xish D&D and 3rd or 4th ed or say Marvel Super Heroes vs. Champions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I always think I want the simple rules, but then I end up thinking they’re too generic or boring. But getting something that is both elegant and detailed isn’t easy.
Casey G. In play, small variations in stats often don't add anything to the fun. So it's better just to group things into broad categories like "two handed sword" and then let players call it a flamberge or claymore or whatever. But that's just my opinion. I find mechanical nuances distracting and rarely justified by play value.
ReplyDeleteIn practice, I've found that tags on top of a basic skein work great to balance simplicity and flavor. For instance, your broad sword and your battle axe may both do X damage, but the axe has a tag (e.g. chop) that gives it a bonus effect against wooden targets and the sword as a tag (e.g. julian fries) that gives a bonus effect against lightly armored fleshy targets. Plus the tags automatically add flavor.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Altman Yup!
ReplyDeleteI love reading the rules for CBT. I have a shelf full of "Core" rule books. When it comes to playing, I can't be bothered. I remember the first time I played Alpha Strike at Gencon; 50+ mechs on the board and the whole scenario fit easily in the 4 hr block. I remember thinking "well, i guess I'll never be playing Classic Battletech ever again..."
ReplyDeleteJames LaManna CBT is best when used as an extension of the RPG component, be that Mechwarrior or Time of War.
ReplyDelete