Wargame Design: The Soul of Your Game

I reviewed Ash Barker's game Last Days a few months ago.  In that review, I make a passing reference to the books foreword.

I love it when a game has designer notes. Ash has a nice forward that lays out what he was trying to accomplish beyond the 4Ms of the game. It is only a few pages long, but those few pages were excellent in describing the type of game we were getting into, and were good food for thought for other aspiring game designers. The way he establishes what made skirmish games so appealing to him was clear, and his taste and design aesthetic was clearly laid out. Kudos to Ash!

You can read the rest of the review at your leisure, but today I wanted to go back and take a closer look at this section of the book.  As we all know, Ash Barker is a bit of a celebrity in the wargaming world due to his very successful and fun YouTube channel.  There he shares and reviews a lot of games.  He has been active in wargaming for a long time, and Last Days is not his only rules.  However, in the Foreword to Last Days he lays out some thoughts about what makes a wargame, but especially a skirmish game successful.

In this day an age, many people are trying to create their own skirmish games.  They are struggling with the 4Ms, massaging their concepts into workable games, adding chrome, activation methods, how to make Tactical play, and much more.  Therefore, I thought it made a bit of sense to dig into what he wrote and talk about some of the key concepts as they are relevant to all those aspiring wargame designers out there.   

 

The Soul of Your Game
I do not know the number of game reviews I have read that say.... "The game is well structured, cleanly written, and the rules are well laid out"  Wow, what a ringing endorsement.  You know what else is well structured, cleanly written, and well laid out?  The phone book... makes you want to rush out and find one for a good read through!  A game is more than the sum of its parts.

A good game is more than a set of mechanics, resolutions, and mechanics.  Ultimately a game is supposed to be fun.  Therefore, after reading through and looking at your own game, what experience do you walk away from the game with?  What did it make you feel?  Was that the experience you wanted it to have?  Those in-game feelings are not going to be generated on their own.  The mechanics need to lead you to those emotions.

Think of it as series of equations:

• (Mechanics + Decision Points) = Outcomes 
• (Concept+ Game Play Experience) = Emotional Investment
• Outcomes + Emotional Investment = Fun!

This blog has talked a lot about mechanics, generating decision points, game structures, etc.  However, those are only one side of the equation.  They are the side that generates Outcomes.  The other half that we talk about a bit less is that Game Play Experience.  I.e. how does the game make you feel the way the concept of the game is supposed to make you feel?

The Game Play Experience is the Soul of the game.  Mechanics, Decision Points, outcomes are the physical body.  In my own series about wargame design the mechanical elements that are discussed use the body as a metaphor; Activation is the nervous system, Dice Mechanics are the muscle, etc.

This other side of the game is the soul of your game.  It is where the emotional investment is.

How do you create Emotional Investment in a Game? 
Ash has a list of a few things that he has named and that are is touch stones in game design.  I have a few of my own as well.  It is these pieces that will help create the right soul of your game.

1. Replayability
These are the elements of the game you have added, so no one is playing the same game twice.  This can be complications, scenarios, wandering monsters, win conditions, events, etc.  They are things that take what the player thinks they know about the game... and changes them up, flips them over, or turns the game inside out.  Therefore, you can play the game millions of times, but it is never the same game.

2. Mood Setters
These are mechanics or rules that are simply in there to help fit the right feel or concept of the game.  They vary based on the game you are trying to make, but some rules are designed to evoke the right "feel" for the concept and to be able to get into the head space of the models in the game.  An aerial game should feel different from a land based skirmish game..... how?     

For example, in a horror game you need it to feel horrifying.  How do you do that?  Fear checks?  Escalating tension?  Blind reveals?  Injury Charts?  Loss of control?  Low likelihood of success?  That is up to you the designer.

3. Big Reveals
The Big Reveal is what the models get at the end of the game.  Do they harvest abilities, stat increases, and loot OR do they wind up crippled, destitute, and hungry?  It really depends on the feel of the game and how you reward outcomes in the game.  However, players will be looking for these "Big Reveals" through the use of a campaign system, in game mechanics or even simple victory conditions.   

4. Story Boards   
This is where a game can become larger than the sum of its parts.  Stand alone games can be linked into a larger narrative of events.  Each game, each turn, each element of the game are a series of events.  How do these events play into the larger game or campaign?  Can they be linked into a narrative to "tell the story" of the game or campaign?   

For example, Did Sergeant Wilkins stand at the old farmstead slow the oncoming tide of enemies long enough for the rest to escape?  Did the destruction of the units at the Battle of A mean that the Battle of B Squared had to be fought?  Did Johnny dropping his gun mean that the team had to break into the sporting goods store and secure a new one?

Final Thoughts             
None of these elements are particular to Skirmish wargames.  However, it is easy to see how the "campaign elements" encouraged by skirmish games tick these boxes off much easier than other types of games can.  However, all games need these types of elements to build the soul of the game.  The best games build these elements into the "meat and potato" mechanics that take place turn by turn.  Without them, you have a series of operational instructions more akin to a phone book than a game. 

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page for more fun: https://m.facebook.com/pg/BloodandSpectacles/posts/?ref=bookmarks&mt_nav=0

Or our website:

http://www.bloodandspectacles.com/

Or our Messageboard:

http://bloodandspectacles.proboards.com/

Or our Wargames Vault Page:

https://www.wargamevault.com/browse.php?keywords=blood+and+spectacles&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=

Wargame Design: Thinking Through Activation for your Game

Welcome as we progress through the process of creating Only the Strong Survive; a game of dinosaur combat.  In previous posts we have discussed how to flesh out the conceptof your game, build design goals, and use these to flesh out your 4Ms to create a skeleton of a game.  At this stage you have a very good concept of what you are trying to accomplish and how you intend to do it.  You could start doing some rudimentary play tests of the game system to see how it hangs together. 

We have not discussed a key element.  This element is possibly the most important component to creating tactical game play.  If the 4Ms are the skeleton of your game, this element is the muscle and sinew.  It holds the component pieces together as a whole.  It is the last element needed to create a playable game.  I also find it to be the most compelling feature of many game systems.  What is this sacred ingredient?  It is the Turn Sequence.  How and when models can act in relationship to each other. 

$10 at Wal-mart got me these and many more for testing

There are as many ways to handle activation as there are games to play.  Below are some basic ideas to get you started on the path of thinking about this mechanic:

1.       I-GO-U-GO- Basically, both players take turns and do all actions with their entire force.  One player does all their actions, and then the other player does all of their actions.  There are many famous games with this structure.  Contrary to popular belief, this method is not inherently wrong.  Like all mechanics there are advantages and disadvantages to this method. 

a.       Advantages- Easy to understand, simplicity

b.       Disadvantages- Can have down time, Opponent has few counters

c.       Examples: Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy Battle

2.       Alternating Activations- In this method, a model/unit is activated by a player, it completes its action, and then the opponent gets to do the same with their model/unit.  Play alternates back and forth until all models have been activated.

a.       Advantages- Players exchange play frequently to stay in the game 

b.       Disadvantages- Forces act disjointedly, react “in the moment”

c.       Examples: Dystopian Wars

3.       Activations by Phase- One player has all of their units/models perform one of their available actions such as move.  Once complete, the opposing player can then have all of his models/units complete the same action.  Once complete, the first player can then have all of his models/units perform the next action. 

a.       Advantages- Play goes back and forth, Units can coordinate actions

b.       Disadvantages- Can have downtime, Opponent can have limited response

c.       Examples: Poseidon’s Warriors, In Her Majesty’sName

4.       Activation Order- At some point, an order of who can activate when is established and then followed in a linear way.  For example, all units of a certain type can activate, then of another type can activate, and then a third type, until all units have performed an activation.  The order can be set in advance or fluid and changing, but there is a clear order of activation.

a.       Advantages- Used to differentiate unit/models, Play typically moves between players

b.       Disadvantages- Establishing or recalling proper order

c.       Examples: Dux Bellorum, The Games: Blood andSpectacle

5.       Act/React- A player can choose to activate or use a model/unit.  However, if certain criteria are met then the opponent player can try to activate or use one of their own models/units as a ‘reaction’ to what the acting player is doing.       

a.       Advantages- Leads to dynamic game play

b.       Disadvantages- Complex, mechanic heavy, not intuitive

c.       Examples: Infinity, Rogue Stars, Force-on-Force

6.       Push-Your-Luck- A model/unit that is active can continue to do stuff until they fail.  Then activation moves to a different model/unit OR the opponent can start activating their models/units. 

a.       Advantages- Forces player decision, Create friction

b.       Disadvantages- Artificial outcomes

c.       Examples: Blood Bowl, Black Powder

The above is just a flavor of the general styles out there.  In addition, there can be multiple small variations to the specific mechanic or combinations.  For example, the main mechanic maybe I-GO-U-GO with an Overwatch mechanic that allows an Act/React system to come into play, or a resource that is spent in order to interrupt.  Again, this is where research and being familiar with a wide variety of game systems and mechanics comes in handy.  You can see exactly how other designers have tackled similar challenges to the ones you are facing.

As you consider the activation method or turn sequence for your game, it is a good idea to refer back to your Design Goals.  In the case of our dinosaur fighting game, Only the Strong Survive; they were:

1.                   Interesting battles between Dinosaurs 1-on-1 or in very small groups.

2.                   Gameplay that flows quickly and easily between players

3.                   Lots of decision making for the player

4.                   Clear differentiators between Dino types

5.                   Scale and model agnostic

6.                   Combat that flows freely, not locking you in

7.                   Positioning is key

Reading the design goals, I can immediately eliminate some of the options from our list.  Activation by Phase and I-GO-U-GO do not seem to be a good fit.  However, I-Go-U-Go could work with small model count games; I am going to steer away from it for now.  Those typically have some longer wait times as players complete their phases.  My design goals specifically call out quickly flowing game play and free flowing combat. 

Alternating Activation and Activation Order seem like they could work fine.  However, I also want to force decisions on the player.  The key decision in these activation methods is simply who to activate when.  If it is a 1-on-1 fight, there will be no decision making using these methods.  On the other hand, how they fit into an activation method is a good way to distinguish between dino types.  However, I am going to eliminate those from our final list as well.  The positives do not outweigh the negatives right now.

This leaves us with Act/React and Push-Your-Luck.  I have successfully used Push-Your-Luck mechanics before in Combat! Starring Vic Murrow.  It allows for models to differentiate themselves and potentially “chain” there efforts together, but a successful chain could disenfranchise an opponent’s ability to act.  I have also seen Push-Your-Luck mechanics lead to some bizarre outcomes in games like Black Powder, Hail Ceasar, and Lion Rampant that have been off-putting to some reviewers and players. 

When I take a closer look at Act/React in games like Arena Rex it seems like a strong fit.  Arena Rex is also a model-vs-model (or small group) melee fight.  There, certain actions allow clearly defined reactions, and different fighters can have unique reactions for differentiation.  This seems to fit what I am trying to accomplish pretty closely.  On the other hand, in games like Infinity or Rogue Stars I have seen it lead to one model doing all the heavy lifting while the rest of the team just sits and cheers the biggest, baddest model on. 

After reviewing my design goals and the skeleton of the game I have put together so far, I have decided on trying to build some sort of Act/React system.  Obviously, I will need to build in some sort of limiting factors so players will need to “manage” their dinosaurs and their ability to react.  The exact nature of this mechanic is not clear yet, but it could simply be a dice pool that reduces as they use it, and a success indicates they can react and no successes indicate they can not.  Then the number of successes could dictate the list of available reactions.  The more successes the more aggressive the reaction?   These reactions could also vary by dinosaur with more nimble and reactive dinos able to do more aggressive reactions, while bigger, slower dinos might need more successes to do something less aggressive.

Now, with the skeleton and muscles of the basic game in place, it is time to move onto the next steps. With the basic elements in mind, you need to start putting together some basic profiles for the units in your game. You can’t build a unit profile, until you have an idea of how the game is going to work. If you go back and review the post on fleshing out the 4Ms and combine it with this post, you can see a shadow of the profiles being created. Next time, we will look at the process of building two Dinosaur profiles for Only the Strong Survive based on the core mechanics we have discussed here.