It's all about the Game and how you play it!: A ramble about game design and rules

 Game design and Rules

    I have played various tabletop games as far back as I can remember as a kid and as I have gotten older this has only been built upon by my love of miniature wargaming from small skirmish games such as Mordheim, to the larger battles of Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000. Or into the historical wargames such as Bolt Action. After the better part of three decades I think I have formed a few fundamental opinions over what makes and breaks a game from a design and rules standpoint as a player. I wanted to explore a few of those ideas here. 

GRAVITY: keeping it grounded

here we have it the bedrock of our game, the core rules

    There should at the core of all game rules and design a set of immutable rules. These are the core assumptions of a game that govern how its various parts move, such as pawns move forward or queens move any distance along any line. This are aptly called the core rules in most games and they form a lynch pin that holds the game together. Despite how intense this sounds many games can have these summarised into a one or two page reference sheet. 

    Even some of my personal favourite games will have a similar break down that can sit alongside the gaming table to be snatched up for a quick check. X Wing comes to mind immediately, and most games will attempt to have their rules balance the easy to learn whilst being hard to master, and may even present the core rules and then a second layer often referred to as an 'advanced rule set'. These are generally a second body of rules that players can opt to add in to give further depth to their games. 

Yeah Bwoi! Let's sprinkle some additional rules in there!

    To use X Wing again as an example I was introduced to the game at my FLGS due to the store owner knowing I am a fan of Star Wars. I played a few rounds and the game was incredibly easy to pick up. The beer and pretzels experience that gamers will call these quickly learned and played games. When I had played a few games the owner told me that there would be a tournament that weekend to celebrate to the release and in a testament to his sales skills I was walking out an hour later with all the ships I needed to play in the tournament. I was able to comfortably play, whilst being surprised by the finer points that I had not taken on in practice. Again easy to learn hard to master. 

    Another key reason that core rules need to be clear, and work, is that these are games not work. If your rules are not solid, and your players have to come out of their game to do work just to have the game function. Pretty quickly they will lose interest. Which may seem like a strange paradox considering the large volume of online discourse about games becoming streamlined and over simplified. Yet really I just want to be able to play a game and sink some beverages with mates, not feel like I am doing my tax return. 

That extra layer: The bonus rules

    Once players have come to grips with the core rules of a game additional or advanced rules can be included to give it more depth, and in some cases change the feel and play of the game. An example that springs to my mind is the Sails of Glory from Ares games. 

Time to live out those Master and Commander fantasies

    I picked the game up on a bit of a whim some years back, and had plans to use the ships in some D&D sessions as well. Overall the game was fairly easy to pick up at its core. Definitely hitting all the right beats for a ship fighting tabletop. However as I said once we played a few games and got the hang of the game we were able to throw in the additional rules such as wind, commands, and other additional rules that if we had taken on initially may have slowed our learning.

    Advanced rules are those special little touches that reward players generally with further immersion, or narrative elements. They should be a reward for those wanting to take their games that extra step forward and not something that completes a game. A game should stand on its core rules almost entirely. 

Well someone needs to make a first move

Who Goes First: different orders of play

    One element of game design that is often overlooked is the most simple question of game rules. Deciding who goes first. Roll off, coin flip, baked in initiative orders, being the white pieces in Chess. There are a number of ways that rulesets have dealt with this issue. 

    It may seem like a simple issue but realistically it has been a major factor in games. Having that initiative can dictate so many factors of the game from placement, movement, and in some cases the removal of opponent's resources. On a personal note I have come to see this as being of more and more importance to gaming if the aim is to create a more engaging play experience. Some common approaches to turn sequencing have been. 

You Go I Go

    This is the main format that I have played since entering wargaming back in those wild times of the 90's. This essentially can be boiled down to decide who goes first. This can be through roll off or coin flip. Warhammer has tried to influence this with drops adding plus one to the roll for the 'smaller' force, and even adding the seize on a six mechanic. Regardless of the option the end result is the same both players meticulously deploy their armies that they have invested hours into designing and painting. Then one player deletes multiple units off the opponent's army whilst the other player patiently waits, or drinks a beverage. Then once the dice settle they can then marshal what is left to care on. This system has a reputation of leading to 'down time' for players as they have nothing to do. There have been attempts in games like 40K and AoS to fix this with strats, and reactions. However ultimately this is less than interactive system that does not encourage players to remain engaged in gameplay when it is not their turn. 

Set Phases to Alternating

    Another style of rules sees the issue of play order approached by breaking the game into alternating phases of the turn. In which each player will complete necessary movements, and combats. Whilst still using an inbuilt you go I go system they will attempt to break it up by alternating the phases. Worthy mentions include Star Wars X-Wing, and the Middle Earth Strategy Battlegame. X-Wing alternating between moving and shooting depending on piloting skills with lowest piloting skills moving first and shooting last. As an aside I used to love this system as I was an aggressive bump player deliberately placing lower skilled pilots in such a way to block and bump higher skilled pilots in order to disrupt their actions. In MESBG there is a roll off for priority then each player will complete their movements, then shooting, and combats with the player who won priority getting to complete theirs first. This opens up a level of reactivity and engagement in both sides. It avoids the feels bad of the You Go I GO and watching your army deleted piece meal. 

ALTERNATING ACTIONS: Return of the King

    This brings me to the final mainstay of the who goes when options. In which each player takes turns activating units and completing all of that unit's various actions. It is worth noting also this can be either randomised or decided by a priority system. For example Bolt Action would be an example of a randomised activation. In which every unit has an order die of a set colour for each player placed in a bag and players draw each die out and then activate a unit of that faction. There is a possibility of multiple activations in a row for one side or another. Where as a game like Star Wars legion will offer alternating activations with each player taking a turn to activate a unit in a back and forth you go I go. Legion also sees player construct lists without using all their points to attempt a 'bid' in which lowest points takes the priority. 

    Games Workshop has dabbled into skirmish and alt activations with ranges like Kill Team, and in the case of Kill Team has done so quite well. In fact it was what started this whole round of rules based navel gazing for me in the first place. The benefit of alternating activations is that players have less down time and thus are more engaged. I have been lucky enough to have played a few games of KillTeam leading my Krieg suicide machines against Marines and Orks. Not only to hilarious, but also enjoyable and engaging, results. These games had me far more invested, and engaged than the typical styles of game I have experienced with GW offerings. So much so I really do not think I will be going back much to playing in regular you go I go style games. 

Final Thoughts

In the end of we will all gravitate towards what we find most entertaining to us. I do however wonder how much we stick with what we have known for lack of trying other styles of games. This year as we go into a new year why not put aside the resolutions of weightloss, and learning another language. Why not instead make a resolution to try another system of play. With 10th edition 40k on the horizon(or on stamps at the least) I wonder if they will do much in terms of rules changes to address some of issues I have covered here. Probably not. Either way try something different. What have you go to lose?


As always I am your Khan remember Hospitality is sacred.