Randomness and the Solo Experience

I've found that the most rewarding Solo Experience I have ever had has been using a system of rules I constructed myself. I'm not saying this to blow my own trumpet, because when it comes to rules mechanics and my ability to design new ones or choose existing ones and form those into a coherent gaming experience, it is entirely random as to whether the experience is fun or a dull drudge. This is not true for all would be designers, but as I am a full on amateur and in many ways a beginner it is more true for me. So I was simply reflecting upon a rule system I created, and my experience of gaming it, the fun I had, and then trying to work out why that system was more engaging than the plethora of other systems I have cobbled together. One thing kept coming to the surface, it was the central dice mechanic of the game, and how unpredictable that dice mechanic was.

Here's that mechanic word for word from my notes:

Pick up a number of dice equal the attackers attack value.

Pick up a number of dice equal to the defenders defence value. Include 1 die per complete 6” between the attacker and the target, and a number of dice equal to any cover.

Roll both pools of dice. Each die rolled by the defender cancels all the dice of that same number rolled by the attacker.

The number of dice left in the attackers dice pool is the number of hits.

Try to predict the outcome percentage wise, especially when larger volumes of dice are rolled. I'm fairly good at maths, but I realise this is beyond what my mathematical ability will allow.

Hit allocation then worked as follows:

Pick up a number of dice equal to the target units Agility value. And roll for each miniature in the unit in turn in any order you choose. Each roll that matches a value in the dice hit pool causes 1 hit on the miniature rolled for and removes 1 die of that value from the hit pool. Once all miniatures in the unit have been rolled for ignore any dice remaining in the hit dice pool.

Not only is it tough to predict the number of hits caused on a unit, it's then tough to predict which miniatures in a unit will take hits, and the hits they take will be randomly determined. To make sure things aren't a constant stale mate the maximum number of dice either side can roll in combat is 10.

For close combat both sides roll a pool of dice and hits are any unique values rolled between sides, for example, a 6 rolled by side A will block all 6s rolled by side B and vice versa. Hits are then allocated as with shooting. Again remembering the maximum number of dice that can be rolled is 10.

I've found myself in the past just statting up two forces putting them in base to base contact and fighting bouts of close combat to see who comes out victorious, and with close combat the way the dice work really make it feel like the two sides are going at it.

I'm hoping to expand this mechanic out to form the basis of my full solo system.

Thanks for stopping by!

WGP

A Basic Rundown of The Mechanics for My Solo Skirmish Wargame

Each troop type has a number of tokens, these tokens are the same as the troop type’s stats. For example a unit with speed 4, shoot 4 and close combat 3 will have 4 speed tokens, 4 shoot tokens and 3 close combat tokens. The tokens for every unit are then placed in a bag or cup, and mixed together.

One player draws a token from the bag, and the token is then immediately resolved. For example Bill draws a speed token for the Orthodox Sword Sisters. Each Sword Sister still in play is then allowed to move up to 4”.

MOVEMENT

A move is always 4” unless a special rule states otherwise, this is because speed is determined by the number of tokens a troop type has, not the distance it moves each time it performs a move action. You can apply effects to movement such a rough terrain costing half movement etc.

SHOOTING

A hit is scored on a 4+. Each model has a choice between firing upon its nearest enemy model in cover or its nearest enemy model in the open, unless the nearest enemy model is in the open in which case that model must be fired upon. Models in cover will be hit on a 5+ or a 6+, but this is determined by the cover they are in. For models to be in cover they must be obscured from the firing model by half or greater. When a model is hit they lose 1 shield point.

MELEE

A melee or close combat attack is performed when two opposing models are in base to base contact and one of their close combat tokens are drawn. A model causes a hit on another when they roll a 4+. If a model moves out of base to base contact the other model is allowed an immediate free attack (meaning a token doesn’t have to be drawn) against them which hits as normal on a 4+. When a model is hit they lose 1 shield point. If a model is not in base contact with another they may perform a move action instead, but this move action must be towards the nearest enemy model.

SHIELDS

If a model is hit and is reduced to 0 shield points it is killed. When all tokens have been drawn from the bag the turn is over, all tokens are returned to the bag, all models’ shield points are fully restored and a new turn begins.

There will also be a number of special rules,but these have not yet been decided upon and potentially a magic system that works the same way as my previous solo game idea - there will be an additional stat for magic. When a magic token is drawn you put it to one side. When another magic token is drawn, or the turn has reached its end, you must declare what you want to do with your stored magic. Your opponent then declares an equivalent action. Pick up a number of dice equal to your stored tokens and roll them, on a single 6 your action is performed, on a roll of no 6s the opponents action is performed. You cannot combine the stored magic of multiple troop types, each troop type uses their magic individually.

Thanks for stopping by!

WGP

Why aren't there more percentile systems?

A while ago I posted a little something about how I handle mass rolling of 2D6 without resorting to coloured pairs of dice, this was mainly due to my attempts to play Laserburn Imperial Commander. It only just dawned on me today however that you can do the exact same with 2D10 rather than 2D6, and 2D10 can be read no just as a result from 2-20, but as from 1-100. You could have the large skirmish style game (usual 40k levels of figures) based on a percentile dice system. So I suppose the question is then - is results from 1-100 necessary for a game when if you want to go really high you can get your hands on a D20?

D100 can seem a little overkill, but I suppose with that extra granularity you get granularity in your stats and real room to have characters or units improve in a campaign. Just a thought I had, having realised I haven't posted in a long while.

Thanks for stopping by!
WGP

The Elusive Tactical Retreat

I've been thinking up rules which is usually all I think about apart from Theology, and this week I've been struggling with the idea of the tactical retreat.

It seems, in my experience anyway, what the tactical retreat really only works within the campaign game. Other wise you're always working your forces down to the bone, only the mission matters regardless of the cost, which isn't at all realistic. Troops are either destroyed or hang around until their morale breaks and they flee... there may well be a point at which you pull some men back from a position a small tactical retreat if you will, but I'm talking about a force wide retreat off the table of troops that are not fleeing in fear, and for good reason. It's something that happens a lot in real wars, but again on the table top is unlikely unless your trying to save troops for a mission later on in a campaign.

So how can we replicate this on a tabletop in a stand alone game?

Kings of War game me an idea. In Kings of War there are three outcomes to a game you can win, lose or draw. The margin of the draw is quite large however, so one player can have earned more points than another, quite a few in fact, but the game still counts as a draw.

Say you're getting battered by your opponents force, and you know that very soon he'll have so many more points than you that it will be a win for him and a lose for you. What if by making that tactical retreat, you can force a draw?

Just a thought. Plus I'm thinking it's better to reward players more points for taking prisoners and less for killing people... just so we can have less blood baths and more ethical gaming (assuming you treat your prisoners well).

Thanks for stopping by!
WGP

When a game is obviously a game it's a problem

If you regularly have a peek at what I'm up to you'll usually see that I'm tweaking or working on rules, in fact this is probably the main way my hobby expresses itself in my day to day life. When I'm not thinking about rules I'm usually painting models and listening to podcasts, my favourite of which is Meeples and Miniatures. The reason I love this podcast so much is because, as you may have guessed already if you've ever heard the show is how in depth they go into the rules mechanics of certain games. In the Meeples and Miniatures spin-off podcast View From the Veranda the host Neil and Henry Hyde of Miniature Wargames fame were discussing the difference between 'gaming' and 'wargaming', 'gamers' and 'wargamers'. The 'wargamer' being the one more concerned with historical plausability and realism as opposed to cool mechanics, and the 'gamer' being all about the mechanics as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end. My thoughts on this distinction came to a head while watching a demo game of Bolt Action from Warlord Games on the Beasts of War youtube channel. Bolt Action has been called by many the 40k of the historical hobby, which makes a lot of sense when you consider the minds behind it, and isn't necessarily a bad thing (although I'm sure some mean it that way). Bolt Action has at it's core a mechanic to randomise unit activations. There is a central bag of dice into which is added a die per unit on both sides. When a die is drawn a unit activates the colour of the die determining which side it belongs to. I drew a grey die so the Germans activate, next I drew a green die so the Americans activated a unit, so on and so forth, with each unit only activating once each. The problem came for me when Warren noticed that since one flank on his opponents side had already activated it wasn't urgent for him to take action on that flank. I would say it provides you with a tactical choice to make, but in reality it doesn't because the correct choice is and always will be obvious, attack what hasn't yet activated to reduce its effectiveness, but that's not my main problem. My main problem is that it presents you with a 'game' scenario, not a 'historical' scenario. When has any general ever said "It's no longer pressing for me to order my men on the right flank since the enemy has already activated his units." What the mechanic does is force something to the surface that we as wargamers really shouldn't be reminded of - that model men need to be 'activated' at all. Real soldiers don't pause after they have run a certain distance, or wait their turn to shoot, and while these may be necessary evils in many cases for us as wargamers we shouldn't be reminded of such things while playing, especially when we are reminded by making a choice that was never made by a real life officer. Call it a fatal flaw in the single unit activation type game, at least one where you determine the activations to take place as opposed to randomness like in Gruntz or levels of experience like in USE ME. The goal we are striving for as rules writers or tweakers (because if you game you're one or the other) is simultaneous action, so why make a point out of being a single unit activation style game?

Thanks for stopping by!
WGP