My thanks to the Delta Vector blog for getting me to think about this aspect of Wargames. I have dealt with some pretty esoteric parts of wargame design; deployment, terrain placement, weapon ranges, rules lay-out, etc. However, I had not spent too much time thinking about how a game should end. Most of my thinking had been.... ahem..... front-loaded? I was thinking a lot more about pre-game, game set-up and the game play itself. It I thought about the end of the game it was normally in the realm of Campaign elements. Therefore, when I read Evil Monkeigh's post about how to end a wargame I was struck by what an obvious miss it was on my part.
The Classic Ending
You used to know a movie was over when a black title card flashed up with The End written in white on it. As things developed, this title card was often accompanied by a musical flourish. Then, it evolved into putting The End over a picture or final shot of the film itself. These are all examples of the "classic" ending.
Wargames also have these types of "classic endings" as well. By far, the most commonly seen version of the Classic Wargame ending is using a Turn Sequence to dictate when the active part of the wargame was over. This would then lead to calculating the winner. Typically, you won the game if your side completed their primary mission objective while denying the opponent their objective. In the old days, often the players did not know each others objectives!
The calculation looked a little something like this:
- Did Force A achieve X.Y. and Z? Did Force B achieve 1,2, 3? If Yes to both = Draw
- Did Force A achieve more of X, Y, and Z than Force B achieved 1, 2, 3? If Yes = Win for A, Loss for B
- Did Force A achieve fewer of X,Y, and Z than Force B achieved of 1, 2, 3? If Yes = Win for B, Loss for A
- Did Force A fail to achieve X, Y, and Z and Force B failed to achieve 1,2, 3? If Yes = Draw
A rather simple formula. However, many gamers found such methods unsatisfactory. What if both sides failed to achieve their objective but Force A managed to rout more of Force B? Shouldn't that count for something?
Therefore, the classic "Ending" has some limitations even though I still find it very compelling and relevant.
Many Historical games use this method. Off the top of my head, I am thinking about Blucher from Sam Mustafa.
The Ultimate Ending
The cleanest method is often the simplest. I refer to this as the Ultimate Ending. The side that wins is the one that defeats the entire enemy force. This is the "Table Your Foe" style ending. Force A still has models represented on the board while Force B no longer has any miniatures present due to death, routing, or other reasons. The winner is clear and obvious to all.
Of course, this type of ending has its own issues. First off, such an end to a game is very limited in scope. Objectives and other considerations do not matter. All that matters is eliminating the opposing force as quickly and easily as possible. The replayability of such games gets low very fast. I find games that rely on the Ultimate Ending often also lead to becoming "solved" much quicker because the only factor is finding the units that deliver the most kill while avoiding death themselves.
Sir Robin Endings
A varient of the Ultimate Ending. The difference is that instead of actually killing/eliminating all of the enemy force you just make them fallback or run-away! However, such endings also lead to the same problems as the Ultimate Ending.
For example, a game like Necromunda with a Bottle Test uses this method.
Victory Points
This is a bit like the "Classic Ending" in the sense that at the end of the game it is not always obvious immediately who won. There is a "final phase" where players have to do some math to find out who won. Often times, you gain Victory Points by completing tasks like destroying a certain unit, holding a bit of territory, or a unit not being routed.
This is a versatile system as the designer can assign different Victory Points for achieving certain key details. This also allows the use of primary and secondary objectives of varying points. It can also connect the "value" of a unit to the number of Victory Points gained or lost from the unit's destruction. Finally, Victory Points are a great way to create a structured and competitive approach to a game. The major downside is that victory is not always obvious at the end of the game, and requires Math to know for sure.
For example, many GW games use this method.
Time is the Enemy Ending
In the Classic type of ending a game ends when a certain number of turns are completed by both players. They have an equal chance to do all the things in each turn. In this type of ending, the game length is not set by arbitrary turn limits. Instead, it is set by a hard time limit. I.e. the game will end after 1 hour of play. No matter what is going on at that point, the game ends.
This type of end is surprisingly common in tournament style play. The game rules may state 6 turns total, but a tournament may not have time for all 6 turns to be played out fully. This can lead to a strange "run-out-the-clock" type of strategy by players. The other flaw is that at the end, the winner is still not obvious and you need to use a VP or Classic If This Than This winning condition for the winner.
Grab the Loot
In these types of games, the board is scattered with objectives that have to be grabbed and moved off the board. The team that moves the most loot off the board is the winner. On the upside, it is typically obvious who the winner is at the end of the game, especially if you have uneven loot markers. On the downside, I have played games like this where no one interacted or fought with each other as they were too busy grabbing loot.
The obvious example of this is Frostgrave and the other Grave style games.
Hit Your Marks
A variant to the Grab the Loot, except the loot does not move. The models have to sit on it all game and score at the end. Many of the same advantages and disadvantages as the above. However, with uneven Marks to grab there is always an incentive to fight over one.
For example, the Batman: Miniature Game by Knight Models used this method of sitting on objectives to score points.
Doom Clock
The game has a limit to how long it will go, but the turn limit is not set. It is instead based on the actions of the players. As certain key actions happen, it raises the Friction for the battle. Once it hits a limit the clock has run out. This ends the game or triggers and end game turn. This could be individualized doom clocks for each force OR a game-wide Doom Clock. When the Doom Clock is reached the game ends.
This approach means player action dictates the end-of-the-game trigger. They can "manage" the clock based on their needs in the game. On the downside, there is more to track and a greater chance of error in triggering the end state when needed.
For example, individual Doom Clocks are represented really well by Battlegroup. Each force has a breakpoint, and as they take damage they draw a random chit with the total of these chits adding up to their break points. When the break point is hit, that force has broken and is the loser.
For a more unified Doom Clock a game like 1490 Doom fits the bill. All players are constrained by the rising flood waters. It rises and players need to react to the end of the game looming closer and closer.
Combinations
Of course, many games use a variety of combinations of these techniques, even in the same game! The end state maybe scenario specific. By using various end states, the game can increase its replayability by changing up what it takes to win from game to game. Not every game has a "universal" win condition. The downside is that such differentiated win conditions mean that winning is an If This Than That rules interaction.
For example, I am thinking of the various scenarios all have different end of game victory conditions in Wars of the Republic
Final Thoughts
Like all decisions in game design, the choice of how a game ends and who wins and loses should flow from a simple decision. Which method does what the designer wants it to do? This needs to flow from the designer's POV of the game and their Design Goals.
Win conditions will "teach" your players how they should be playing the game. How to win will influence the tactics of the game. These tactics will then impact the "feel" of game play. Therefore, win conditions are a critical part in making sure that your game "does what you want it to do!".
For example, Under the Martian Yoke is designed to be a survival horror wargame. The sense of things spirally out of control is intended to heighten the tension while playing the game. A Doom Clock is a natural fit for this type of game. Meanwhile a game like Wars of the Republic which is intended to give historical--ish outcomes needs to be able to mirror the results of scenarios from the historical record; and therefore a more mixed approach might be needed to cover that breadth of outcomes.
In wargame design, the end can have a strong influence on the beginning and middle of the experience. Therefore, be intentional about what win conditions you wish to use in your core rule and scenario designs.
Until next time!
Become a Patron and get access to all the cool stuff, a peak behind the curtain of Blood and Spectacles, and early-access to playtest games!
You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page or Instagram for more fun!
Check out the latest publications and contact me at our Blood and Spectacles website
Or purchase all out games at the Blood and Spectacles Publishing Wargames Vault Page!
No comments:
Post a Comment