While editing G Company today - fixing a spelling error and some other typos - I started to think about different ways to present the same information to the player (9x of 10 it's just my future self, so it might seem moot, but I do like to share with others in case someone might find some use in them). It probably doesn't help that I'm reading a book on tabletop game design and I'm in the process of putting together another set of rules ("back of postcard" type. I just enjoy the exercise of it all - this one probably won't be terribly robust - it's more to try out some concepts).
 |
| Soviets overrun Company G as they try to hold onto Village M. |
Shooting:
All weapons roll 1d6 to hit, except for MGs. MGs roll 2d6 and keep the highest value.
MGs jam on two natural 1’s.
Weapons teams may not move and fire in the same turn.
*****
Since there are only a handful of modifiers, I thought why not just present the target numbers and their associated conditions instead? Indeed, when I created the original table, I created the modifiers by figuring out what values would hit in what situations. So, here's what I came up with (the weird spacing is a Blogger thing):
Shooting:
All weapons roll 1d6 to hit, except for MGs. MGs roll 2d6 and keep the highest value.
Weapons teams may not move and fire in the same turn.
*****
This is really the only table this applies to in G Company, but I think it raises an interesting question. Is one way better than the other? Faster? Easier?
I'll have to try it in a game to see if I feel it makes any noticable difference for good or ill.
For me, the first is easier since you can do it one step at a time. Am I MG or something else, OK 1 die (or highest of 2) 4+ to hit ok what about modifiers, I'm in good order but he's in cover so 5+, now what's the range...
ReplyDeleteThe other requires me to remember all the possible situations and figure out which combination applies and then go looking for that particular combination.
Depends on the gamer I suspect.
The first is easier for me too but I'm not sure it if's just what I'm used to seeing or it is in fact easier. I think Kaptain Kobold makes a good point that it's not clear how to read the 2nd version - I think rewritten to be clearer, a particular audience that prefers target numbers to calculations,it might work, but I'll have to think on that more.
DeleteI like the earlier format better, too, for the same reasons enunciated by Ross.
ReplyDeleteChris
Thank you, Chris! I suspect most people will prefer the former method (myself included).
DeleteI don't even understand how to use the second table - does a '5' not hit a "Target in open, shooter good order, 1/2 range or less"? It should, but it's not listed.
ReplyDeleteThank you Kaptain Kobold! That is one of those things that seemed obvious to me, because I wrote it. I definitely need to come up with a clearer way to write it to make it useful, but for my general audience, the first way is already sufficient. Two Hour Wargames used to use something like this (they may still, I don't know), but it was written in terms of what misses and "all others hit".
DeleteI think if my audience was young children, gamers who hate math, or people who just prefer target numbers, there could be something worthwhile in tweaking it to get it right, and I'll probably do it as an exercise, but leave it at that.
I prefer the earlier version, though it's probably a wargamer 'pattern match'. We want to know what number to hit, as opposed to assessing what the number we have rolled 'can do'.
ReplyDeleteI find myself looking for the relevant text to match the number on table 2. Not a bad thing though.
I definitely think it's something for a different audience than the "typical" wargamer, although as Kaptain Kobold noted, there's a lack of clarity in how to interpret it. Two Hour Wargames used to use something like this, where you rolled and could see what that value could hit, but it was worded in a way that removed ambiguity. More work is necessary on my part but I don't think it's something I'll pursue for my current rules - maybe for a different project.
DeleteGo with the first table. I firmly believe in "less is more" and, as far as rules go, trimming and condensing as much as one can. The second table seems to oblige me to read every line to discover the modifier for my exact situation; I fell like I need one of those old edge-notched cards with the holes torn out for data positives.
ReplyDeleteA good exercise, though, to explore your approaches and options. Sometimes one must actually implement a concept to see how it looks/works instead of just thinking about it.
Thank you for the comment, Peter. Indeed, in my head, this made a good bit of sense - but in practice it really wasn't any benefit. From a QRS layout perspective alone it is a problem give how many column inches it takes up.
Delete