Game Design: A Quick Update on My Game Design

Hi all, I hope you've been enjoying my musings and theorising on game design.  I haven't got another topic for the normal posts at the moment but I'm trying to think up a good topic to discuss so in the mean time I thought I'd say something about the game I'm designing.

I have in previous post mentioned that I was going to do a 1:72 scale, battle sized WW2 game but recently I've decided to make some significant changes to this.  My game is now going to be a fantasy game as I've been having lots of good ideas to populate my "world" with another reason being that I lack sufficient knowledge about the second world war to make the game fit the background.  For my new setting I am fully designing the "world" which gives me scope to fit any rules that I think are particularly good or if i have a good background idea to work it into the rules rather than trying to fit into a pre-defined framework.

Alongside this change in setting I am going to change the size of the game so not to over extend myself and thinking a bit towards if I were to publish and produce the game to something more realistically achievable, so rather than be a battle sized game it will be scale down to a skirmish/large skirmish game that has the potential to be made to upscale to a larger size.

I've chosen a fantasy setting as I find writing for a fantasy setting easier than a sci-fi one despite (or perhaps because of) being a scientist myself.  The more "medieval" style of fighting will also allow for some characterful rules for fighting in different formations as well as the use of some common fantasy races with some personalised twists to their usual background and feel.  This means there will be the usual elves and dwarves but perhaps not as you'd expect.

So this is a little bit about my game, I am currently in the process of writing both the rules and background for it so I will hopefully be able to put some some previews for you all to read.

Game Design: Part 5; Shooting vs Melee

From my experience with gaming and from talking with other gamers, one of the hardest things to get right in a game is the balance between ranged and melee combat so this is going to be my thoughts on this crucial part of designing a game.  The problem in balancing them from my point of view is getting them both to have the right "feel" while keeping them at the same effectiveness on the battlefield.

When I say the right "feel", what I mean is that for shooting it should feel like you're troops are expending ammunition against the enemy while advancing/defending to both cause casualties and keep your opponent's heads down, while melee should feel fast, furious and frantic  with only one side emerging from the crush victorious while the opponent is wiped out or running for their live but from which neither side emerges unscathed.

This generally leads to shooting being a whittling down unless you bring heavy weapons to bear or focus fire where as melee is a bucket of dice affair where units can evaporate extremely quickly, which can lead to melee being judged as better than shooting.  I don't think this is the case as shooting is balanced to melee in a different was other than speed of destruction, when you shoot you have little to no risk of suffering harm in return whereas with melee combat there's always a high risk of being mauled in return or even being wiped out without causing damage if it goes wrong.

This for me allows for the balance between melee and shooting to be struck by limiting how quickly units can get into combat, how units react to taking casualties from shooting, how quickly units can get from combat to combat and how much damage can be done by a unit in one round of melee.  This balancing act can get skewed to give a preferential phase for example in a fantasy game the balance will be tipped towards melee while a sci-fi game will usually have a preference towards shooting.  The balance for a game like Warhammer 40k, which is a Science-Fantasy game, is the most likely to be equal with no preference as it fits the background well.

When writing game rules its important to work out how the balance of strength of ranged and melee combat is needed by the game to provide a "realistic" feeling to the game in relation to the background material and general type of setting of the game.

So these are my thoughts in balancing the strengths of the shooting and melee combat when designing a game.  If you've had thoughts on this I'd like to hear them or if you have topics that you'd like to hear about from me post them below.

Game Design: Part 4; Terrain and Movement

When it comes to movement, the basics are very simple to grasp either all units move the same distance or different units have different movement values to add some variety and add a little tactical depth to the game.  The main mechanics of movement come when you introduce terrain and its interactions with different unit types within the game, for example in Warhammer 40k there are 3 types of terrain (open, difficult and dangerous) which effect vehicles and non-vehicles differently.  In 40k open allows units to move full speed (usually 6"), difficult means most non-vehicles roll 2d6 and pic the highest as their maximum movement distance while dangerous adds the chance of damaging the unit with each model rolling a d6 and on a 1 taking a wound, whereas vehicles in both difficult and dangerous roll a d6 and on a 1 they become immobilized.  This system is quite simple but gives the right feel that terrain is slowing down the foot sloggers but vehicles crash through it until they get stuck in some way and I think this is well suited to the style of combat in 40k. 

A more complex system is used in Flames of War in which there are five different grades of terrain and each unit type interacts with each grade differently, for example infantry are basically unaffected by terrain and always move full distance where as a standard tank such as a Sherman or T-34 move 12" in open terrain but only 8" when moving through rough terrain.  The Flames system also includes a immobilization mechanic where vehicles and some gun teams moving through rough terrain roll a d6 and depending on the type of terrain need to roll a 2+ for example and if failed they become "bogged down" being unable to act any further that turn.

Both of these systems add extra tactical depth to their respective games as players have to think about the risk of moving through terrain rather than it just being to "dress" the table as well as allowing a city feel very different to a trenchline in is effect on the battle.

Game Design: Part 3; Dice and Activation

In this post I'm going to discuss "dice" and activation in a game.  The first topic is "dice" by which I mean how your game introduces randomness and chance into the mechanics of the game.  This can be using dice, cards or some other method but with any choice, a balance between chance and choice needs to be struck and if possible to make it fit with the theme of the setting.  I am just going to look at dice as this is the choice I've made for my game.

Dice, which are the most common choice for games, gives the designer a set of choices that can make the game unique and add character to it, the first choice with dice is what sided dice to use, for example Warhammer 40k uses a 6 sided dice whereas Warzone Resurrection uses 20 sided dice and this is often referred to a dX where X is the number of sides on the dice.  The number of sides determines the statistic variation available to each roll, for example a d20 has a larger range than a d6 so can give more extreme results.  These extreme results could be used in the game to allow for critical effects, which is the case in Warzone where a roll of a 1 is a critical pass and 20 is a critical fail.  The critical roll mechanic can be used with any sided dice but will be more frequent an a lower sided dice.

The next choice with dice is what method of rolling are you going to use, this could be a target number style, a number of successes or a opposed roll.  The target number type is when the player is looking to equal or exceed a target number, eg an armour save in Warhammer 40k, or to roll equal to or under a target value eq Warzone Resurrection.  The number of successes type is when players roll multiple dice to try to match a number of successes, with a success usually defined using a target number style, an example of this used in Dystopian Wars when shooting.  The last type is an opposed roll which is appears in Dungeons and Dragons, and generally involves both players rolling a dice then adding a number from their stat line with the player who has the highest total winning the roll.  There is no right choice and the type chosen should follow on from what I said in the last blog post meaning that it should, if possible, add to the flavour of the game.

For my game I'm going to be using a target number system for all my mechanics to keep it from getting too complex and hopefully to allow the game to flow better, where players will roll a 6 sided dice then add modifiers to see whether they equal or exceed the target number.

The next step to tackle is activation, which is how the turn is divided between the players.  The first option is to use the "You-Go-I-Go" system which is used in flames of war and warhammer 40k, this means that it is always clear what should be happening and allows the mechanics to be split between a series of phases but it means that generally one player is in a passive roles for long periods of time and it doesn't allow for much immediate reaction to moves made by the other player.

The opposite end of the spectrum is the "alternative activation" system where players take it in turns to pick a unit then move, shoot and assault with that unit, which allows for more reaction to opponent's actions but needs a more complex set of rules to cover this as what a unit does as the turn is no longer divided neatly into phases

There are hybrid systems such as the Lord of the Rings strategy battle game which had phases like the "you-go-i-go" system but in each phase the players take it in turns to do all their units moving/shooting/fighting which is a nice system that keeps the different actions separated into phases to help with the clarity of the rules while allowing players to react to each other to a limited extent.  Another hybrid system is a "multiple alternative activation" system where players activate a set number of units alternatively which allows players to enact set pieces with multiple units such as flanking or covering fire while keeping the quick reaction time for players.

When I was doing this for my game, I wanted a way that allows players to react to each other and reduce time being the observer while still allowing a way for players to use multiple units to achieve their plans so have gone with a hybrid system in which players receive a number of activation points to use to activate units, which have statistic which indicates the number of points needed to activate that unit.

Hope this week's post was useful to you and if you've found anything interesting please comment below for some discussion.  The next post will be about "Units and Movement", so subscribe for more updates.

Game Design: Part 2; Setting Choice

In the last post I discussed the size and scale considerations when designing a game, in this post I am going to discuss choosing a setting and what it means for the game design.  The setting of a game should influence the types of mechanics and their execution in the game, as these should fit the flavour of the setting to improve immersion into the game.

There are three major setting types used in wargaming, which are historical, fantasy and science-fiction.  These three and combinations of them form the basis of most tabletop games I have come across.

Fantasy games involve magic, elves and dwarfs stereotypically and the level of technology is generally at a medieval/renaissance stage.  For this setting the different armies are often different races though they can get sub-racial divisions such as the high, dark and wood elves of Warhammer fantasy.  The focus of fantasy settings lies with the heroes, wizards and mythological monsters so the mechanics of the game need to give these elements as larger and distinctive part within the game.

Science-Fiction games often involve aliens and based on guns, lasers and tanks but often containing a melee combat element.  The mechanics here need to be able to balance the shooting and close combat elements of the game to allow fair competition between armies based on each one as well as reflect a more modern style of combat and leadership such as squads being unaffected by other falling back.

Historical games can have a wide range of mechanics as the setting covers from the before the Roman conquest of Gaul to WW2 and beyond.  This type of setting really benefits from flavourful mechanics to enhance the experience of the history in your game and can share mechanic themes with either the sci-fi games or fantasy ones depending the period they represent.

An example that I think is a good showcase of this idea of mechanic enhanced settings it Bolt Action by Warlord game,s specifically the "hand in the bag" mechanic for activation.  In Bolt Action players active each unit individually and give them one of 6 orders but the decision on who actives next is done by a blind draw of a dice or other token from a bag.  This to me helps to give the impression of officers trying to act and react quickly to the battlefield and never being sure whether you've been quicker than your enemy.

Additionally when picking a setting as well as thinking about how your mechanics can help with immersion, there is the choice to design your own "world" in the setting or to pick up an existing "world" and use this.  Both have advantages and disadvantages, for building your own world the biggest advantage is that you as the game designer get to put in exactly what you want in the game, so if you wanted dragons but not elves then its all your choice and going back to the mechanics you have a bit more free reign to bring flavour as you can always build around mechanics that you like.  The main disadvantages that I see is that by designing it yourself you are more than doubling your work-load as not only will you be designing a game but you will be writing the background to it all which can be a massive challenge, and with a new world players wouldn't have a instantly recognisable brand/units etc.  The opposite is basically true for taking a pre-made setting for your game in that the brand is already there and probably has a fan-base who maybe interested in your game for the setting plus someone else has done the work in defining the factions/units and their in-world interactions and uniqueness but this constrains you when making mechanics as they need to fit into a rigid world rather than be able to define it.

There are some ways you can combine the two such as alternative history games like Dust and Carnevale where they both take the real-world history up to a particular point, so for Dust this is when the alien technology is discovered and for Carnevale this is the "rent in the sky" moment, and then from this point they change the world to bring their game setting about.

When I looked at game setting originally I had the idea of doing a cool sci-fi game with a good basis in the science part (as a scientist myself) but realised that actually designing a whole universe was not what I wanted to do as my first steps into game design/  This lead me to pick WW2 as a setting, partially due to a recent visit to Normandy and the Imperial War Museum at Duxford, Cambridgeshire combined with the iconic tank, the Sherman.  This means that i need to build my game around this setting where the factions and units are pre-determined and breath life into the WW2 experience of  the game through characterful mechanics.

So now that I've talk about the size, scale and setting choices of game design and my choices for each, the next part in this series will look at "Dice and Activation".  If you are enjoying and/or interested this series of articles so far please subscribe/follow and post any comments or points for discussion below.

Game Design: Part 1; Scale and Size

So I thought for my first post about the game I'm in the process of deigning that I would start at what I consider the beginning.  This is the size of the game, the scale of the miniatures and the setting of the game as these three things lay the foundations on which to build the mechanics and forces of the game.  In this post I discuss my thoughts on the size and scale aspects with the setting being the topic of my next post.

The first decision to make is the size of the game you want to make, by which I mean whether you want a skirmish, clash, battle or huge battle as the different sizes need different types of mechanics to make them flow as a game.   For example skirmish games generally focus onto individual soldiers whereas for huge battle games, your playing pieces get more abstracted using multiple soldiers per base for example or one soldier representing multiple soldiers.  

All the sizes have their pros and cons, skirmish games often allow for larger character presence and almost movie style heroics and cinematic moments but often miss showing the players the full extent of the conflict while the larger sizes are the opposite showing the scale of a true conflict while the individuality of the soldiers is diminished.  This means that on average the amount of book keeping for each size is roughly the same as skirmishes often have multiple things to keep track of for each model but use a handful whereas battle sizes have lots of pieces on the table but have only 1 or 2 things to be tracked often for a collection of pieces rather than individually.  The size of game you want to do often goes hand in hand with the scale of the miniatures you want to use for it.

When picking the scale of minis you have to keep in mind that your players will have a limited amount of space for playing and storing models so as the number of models needed for a game increases the scale of the minis needs to decrease.  This means that large minis such as the 54mm Inquisitor models from Games Workshop are perfect for skirmish games but are not at all suited to play a game such as Warhammer 40,000 as you'd need such a large table that it would be unplayable.  This relationship between scale and size mean that a choice of one will usually either decide or limit the choice of the other.

A comparison of Sherman Tanks at differing scales.

For my game I drew from experiences of what I've played and enjoyed, and for me there is something really cool bringing an army to a game that is an army so has multiple squads of infantry supported by tanks, planes and artillery and getting to experience a full battle rather than focusing in on a small handful of guys.  This is not to say I don't enjoy that kind of game or that they are bad games but that if I was given a choice between something like Flames of War and Infinity, I'd pick Flames because I like driving squadrons of tanks about a battlefield more than commanding a small squad.  

This is my kind of game with lots of units and lots of options.
Forge World Calth Board from Warhammer Fest 2014 

This meant that when planning my game I had the idea that it would be a battle or huge battle scale game which meant that I knew that I needed to pick a smaller scale.  The scale I ended up picking was 1:72 scale inspired by some model kits that I saw and to me it gives a balance between being small enough to sensibly play a full battle while keeping a good amount of fine detail.

I hope this starts to give you an insight into my process of designing a game, and might even be helpful for you if you're thinking of doing the same.  If you have helpful comments or even criticism please post it and keep an eye out for part 2.