What makes a great game sytem IYHO

[Mr Evil]

hey guys.

ok at the moment im looking at diferent game mechanics that makes games great and rubbish.

so if youd like to help. could you tell me any game mechanics you love and why, and any game mechanics you dont like and why.

reason i ask is we are forming a game sytem from 2 game sytems me and a freind developed over 10 years ago, and modernising them.

in advance many thanks to any who can help.

 

[Rob_A]

Games that have a nice bond of tactics and luck.
Games that arent decided by 1 unit.
Games where you can have options each turn.

 

[mthomason]

Games which play the way you expect them to, not with obscure rules you have to keep looking up. If it feels like you're playing a glorified board game, someone screwed up. If it feels like you're really "there", someone got it right.

The less you need to look things up on tables, the better (keep it for special weapons and when things explode and the like, not for calculating the result of every single hit).

 

[toothill man]

with me its the feel of the game for example Ive played many celtic feel games but only slaine has captured that celtic vibe of live for the now insult everyone and never look back so is for me great.

conan also feels like the world I have read and so is worth backing non-mongoose worlds I loved were CoC and planescape.

so new slaine,conan and lone wolf (another world I care for)are my next buys

the reason I have avoided RQ is it has no feeling for me its a game system on a world I never played once slaine comes into the fold and other places I care for that will change but for me it is a no :?

 

[Tim]

Are we talking RPG or Miniatures?

For RPG a system that is intuitive to use, plenty of detail for the big things but not so much on the minutia. I also want the numbers to mean something. So they need to have enough range so that players can see a difference between their characters and others, but not so great a range that only really big numbers matter.

For miniatures, I want a set of rules that require tactics and luck, not list building and buying the next big thing. GW games are all about list building and Warmachine plays more like a 3D CCG then a war game. A good game doesn’t need figures; there are plenty of miniatures out there. However if you make figs they need to be good. But the big thing is I want a system that once the game starts it doesn’t come screeching to a halt with every action as we look up rules and calculate modifiers.

 

[tneva82]

GW games are all about list building

I disagree as far as Epic Armageddon goes :lol:

Epic Armageddon and SST are both rulesystems I enjoy a lot. One common factor in both are that they are dynamic with plenty of moving around. Neither also requires lots of book keeping(damage on multi-hit models is about it...Epic also has blast markers but for those you use markers since they also add nice visual representation of them being under fire :wink: ).

Something that is common in both also is high movement compared to weapon ranges yet firepower enough to flatten enemy if he just sits there. Helps a lot to create dynamic game since static sit back and shoot just won't work. Enemy is upon you if you try that so you need to be smarter...

 

[Mr Evil]

cheers guys
yes mini game

my friend whats it to be 300 scale

so far the feedback you have given me is great so please keep it going.

it will be for no specific minis.

also do peopel prefer detail on damge inflicted on larg machines and tanks or just hitpoints lost ?

 

[Silvereye]

also do peopel prefer detail on damge inflicted on larg machines and tanks or just hitpoints lost ?

For me, a bit of both is good. Sometimes Hit Points are too abstract as the vehicle is perfectly healthy until it dies, and itemised damage can result in lots of book keeping as you rupture fuel tanks, stun the crew, disable a gun, randomise it's movement and so on....

Perhaps a basic combination of both so you can nibble through a vehicle's damage potentially trashing systems once a hit threshold is reached or blast it apart out-right, depending on the hit.

 

[Mr Evil]

how about any vehicle hit has to re roll succesfull hit rolls, ie reducing its combat effectivness.

 

[Evil_Trevor]

A great game system has to allow the players to choose any possible course of action and work out a reasonable result, whilst not requiring four years of study and two hours of flipping through the flipping rulebook(s) to work out a mechanic or check all the factors that add/detract from the roll.

From a mini's POV the bestest is the DBA/DBM/DBR/Hordes of the things system IMHO since you can play an entire game running from one A4 sheet. with only a d6 and a ruler or tape measure. Having played several other systems I found that either there were to many arbitary rules or the system was to complicated to be usable as a game.

I havn't tried SST wargamming yet but will probably try it at some time

 

[Rob_A]

Dont get me started on HoTT!
ARGH!!!
Check out www.abingdonwargames.org.uk in the campaign section. I was SO happy when it finished.

 

[Reborn]

Hordes is so simple, I can't understand what the problem was. And there is genuinely no sarcasm there.

Games that rely on tactics, not just dice. Games that have rules detail when it's to do with a central aspect of the game but not when it's to do with something less central (i.e. if it's called "Inflict varying amounts of damage on the enemy's vehicles!" then have a detailed vehicle damage system, but if it's called "Mechwarrior" don't worry so much about unarmoured infantry. Does that make sense?).

 

[weasel_fierce]

Pick a focus.

Stick to it.

 

[Morg]

I disagree as far as Epic Armageddon goes :lol:

QFT - I love EA

What makes a good game in my opinion:
- Minimum downtime for players
- Highly dynamic
- Scalable playing length
- Focused rules (no single model hps for bataillon games)
- Focus on strategy and tactics
- Visual appeal

 

[weasel_fierce]

there's a general rule of "2 down".

If the player is assuming the role of company commander, the lowest unit he should worry about is the squad. So dont bother with individual detail past injury status.

If the game is a platoon thing, then you can go down into fireteam or even individual soldier detail

 

[Elvis in Combat]

Well worded rules and no spelling errors make a good game system. :wink: But that's all done after the basic machanics are in place.

Regarding machanics:

1. Keep "special rules" to a minimum. A special rule for each unit brings out the "rock, paper, scissors" effect in a lot of games. Like Warmachine. Unless that's the point of the game of course such as game systems that are squad or individual in size. Note that I don't mean "stats" shouldn't be unique or highly variable. There is a difference.

2. "Pre-game" actions (movement, shooting, etc) SUCK. If it's something that is done during the game, then it should be done during the game.

3. Little to no paper work.

4. If it's a wargame, go for the "feel" not the "gamey" aspect. Meaning if you are putting together a Platoon level game, design it so a player is a platoon commander*. Keep away from the need to "get that right combination at the right moment with special rule X" for the win from being too obvious.

5. Something I like that others sometimes have problems with: Premeasuring. I personally like games where I may premeasure. Games where people with better spatial ability simply perform better does not make for a fun game and frankly I think the "can't premeasure" rule is used to hide crappy game mechanix.

*See the game "Disposable Heroes and Coffin For Seven Brothers" on how to make a good platoon level WWII game. "Grande Armee" for how to make a Horse and Musket large battle game. "Armies of Arcana" for a superior fantasy mass battle game. "A Call To Arms" because it's cool and SST v1 is certainly better than other Sci-Fi games of course.

 

[weasel_fierce]

1. Keep "special rules" to a minimum. A special rule for each unit brings out the "rock, paper, scissors" effect in a lot of games. Like Warmachine. Unless that's the point of the game of course such as game systems that are squad or individual in size. Note that I don't mean "stats" shouldn't be unique or highly variable. There is a difference.

Agreed. I prefer games where an army or force has some special rules, i.e. "german units receive +1 to MG fire" or whatever. But look up each unit ? No thank you.

5. Something I like that others sometimes have problems with: Premeasuring. I personally like games where I may premeasure. Games where people with better spatial ability simply perform better does not make for a fun game and frankly I think the "can't premeasure" rule is used to hide crappy game mechanix.

I have no preference on that, though I dont get why writers feel they have to specify if you can or cannot. Whatever people agree on

What does drive me nuts is "guess the range" mechanics for things like artillery. (GW, Im looking at you)

 

[IronChefZod]

1. Keep "special rules" to a minimum. A special rule for each unit brings out the "rock, paper, scissors" effect in a lot of games. Like Warmachine. Unless that's the point of the game of course such as game systems that are squad or individual in size. Note that I don't mean "stats" shouldn't be unique or highly variable. There is a difference.

I like special rules, they make units and armies unique. Ideally I think basic units should have around 2 traits each with maybe a special rule. Elite troops should have at least one special rule with traits thrown in. Monsters/Vechicles/Characters should have several special rules each.

Personally I love how unique units in Warmachine and Hordes are due to their special rules. I've never had any trouble remembering what different units do.

 

[Goldwyrm]

I like game turns with mechanics that engage both sides. I don't want either side to wait an hour while the other guy does everything.

I like probability distributions that give a wide range of results with the extremes being less common than the expected.

I also like a system that is easily modified to suit figures from multiple sources.