Philosophy and Games: The Ten Commandments of New Players

So a short update before next Monday. I'll start with a bit of recap of the results, and then get into the Philosophy.

Well, Tuesday's Mordheim session almost didn't happen. I was in a car accident. No one was hurt (thank god) but my car is going to that great junkyard in the sky (Tube City Scrap, next to the Target on the top of the mountain near my work).

So we had to play a vastly reduced session, however much fun was had by all. Not only the two guys who played, but also quite a few lookie-lous who stopped by to take a peak.


So here's the Philosophy part of it to me;

The best part of it is that everyone won. I had designed a 'capture the flag' type scenario (which I will post later). It worked out really well. In each game, one person walked away with the flag, and the other walked away with a real win (a failed rout check for the opponent). That was the best of all situations for me, because no one got horribly trounced and discouraged. If someone had walked away with both the flag and the rout win, that would have been bad. Well, kinda bad. Just very discouraging for the other guy.

That's my game philosophy, I want new guys to have a tough but fair battle. There are philosophies that say to trounce the new guy. I remember when I heard about the 'beginner's battles' that GW put on for 40K, back in 3rd Ed. From what I understood it was five tactical marines vs. 5 genestealers. Started at 24 inches. A couple rounds of shooting, and then the genestealers would kill the hell out of the marines. It wasn't a fair scenario. The new player with the marines would ALWAYS lose. From what I understood that was policy. It was supposed to make the new guy want to go out and get his own models and try to get back at the employee.

Er. How is that supposed to work? I don't know about you, but when I get my ass kicked at something, I don't want to do it anymore. Which is why football never really appealed to me (to play that is), I got my ass kicked HARD in football (literally, I got knocked down and the rest of the kids in the neighborhood ran over my prone body).

Winning is good, and loosing is bad. Winning is awesome, however people aren't stupid. They realize when you are GIVING them a win (like when my wife tries to get me to play Monopoly). People don't like that. It makes them feel like you are treating them like a child. Not even children like that. Children ESPECIALLY don't like that. Pulling punches does not work. After your new player goes home, and they think about it, they'll wonder why you didn't use that tank the whole fight.

That's why I think the best thing you can do is give them a fair fight. Something where they have a decent chance to win, but might not. If you win, that's to be expected, you are a veteran player. If they win, all the better. The best thing that can be done is a fight that can end very closely. A close game is always exciting, and it keeps people on the edge of their seat. An unbalanced game does not provide that to people. Especially when one side trounces the other throughly. That's great when you've spent months planning and modelling your army, not so great when you have no personal investment to the army, which is exactly the place that the new player is coming into. They have no emotional connection to what they are playing. The point of a new player game is to CREATE that connection.

Here are my Ten Commandments for introducing new players, some of these are obvious, but I like to beat people over the head with the known.
1. Play fair.
2. Allow the new player to pick which side they want. This proves to them that neither side is superior or inferior, just different.
3. Keep it simple. You might want to leave the odd units and models out of it for now. Introduce things over time. Maybe start with just infantry, then add seige weapons, and then whatever.
4. If you nerf a rule for a new player, nerf it for yourself. An example of this is to not play 'touch' rules in chess.
5. Walk the new player through every step, every turn! If they start leading it, so much the better. They are NEW, so they don't know the rules- don't expect them to. It is hard to keep going over the same thing over and over, but it is so helpful to a new player.
6. Unlike a regular game, you need to point out stupid things they might be doing. 'Hey, you don't want to move that guy, if he moves, he can't shoot!'.
7. Explain what you are doing as you do it. This gives them insight into things they can do during their turn as well. 'This guy is hiding behind the wall so you can't shoot him.'
8. Bring the pretty pieces, and some not so pretty ones. Showing very different levels of prettiness is important. A just assembled model, a primed one, a color base one, and a completed one. That why the new person can see the process up close and personal. The color base is really important. It is the simplest paint, but it still looks not bad. It gives a new person a glimmer of what they should be able to do straight out of the gate.
9. Post game review. I love to throw this one out there. After the game talk to the new people about what went right and what went wrong. Don't shy away from pointing at your own shortcomings.
10. Never blame the dice. It might be tempting, and you might do it on a normal basis, but resist the urge! If the new player realizes that you never got the dice rolls you needed, so much the better. Do not say it yourself. If you played fair and played right, they should by now realize what hurt you (or them) and what helped!

Philosophy and Games: Story vs. Game OR Crunch vs. Fluff.

I've been thinking a lot about games lately. Wow, big surprise there right? The thing is that I am fundamentally a different gamer now then I was when I was younger. The sacred cows I held when I was younger have been slaughtered and turned into steak and ribs.

There was a time I was a fluff bunny. Then for a bit I was a crunch addict. Now, I fall somewhere in between. For those of you who don't follow the wargames circuit, that's background and story compared to hard game rules and physics. Nowadays, I'm neatly in the middle.

There were times I wanted my Chaos Marines to act more chaotically. When I say chaotically, I really meant erratically. Just random stuff, I was not contemplating the mean of chaos being a goal instead of a description. Chaos in the 40K world does not mean true chaos, its more anarchy. Tear down the established order.

There was a time when I wanted to beat the ever living crap out of a dude who wanted to use a Tau/IG combined list with homebrew rules. Not thinking of the few Imperial worlds that were Gu'ala. NOT IN MY RULES BUDDY!

Those are just 40K examples. There's more and more out there. I've been thinking more and more about this in relation to D&D rather then wargames, but it still applies. My philosophy now is much more game-centric then story-centric. I went from the dude who never killed anyone unless it was story appropriate to a dude who gleefully enacts a TPK (Total Party Kill).

The thing is at the end of the day, I realize that D&D is a game. It is not a novel writing tool, regardless of what Weiss and Hickman say. For it to work as a game, there has to be risks, and there have to be consequences. It is supposed to be a challenge to be overcome.

That's my game philosophy. The players drive the game, the DM provides the challenges. The players can only become legendary if they are provided the opportunity to do so. I don't sit down and come up with an outline (anymore at least), I plan things out very loosely, and let the PCs go where they will. Everything they do is because they are given the choice.

I suppose that's why I like published adventures, I can plop them down, and just get going. If the PCs opt out, well then, I'm only out a few bucks and I can use it later. They are great a outline.

The thing is that I want my PCs to do whatever they want. I want them to feel like my game is their game. I give them challenges, that I expect them to live up to. I give them choices, and I expect them to choose wisely. I give them background and fluff, and I expect them to enjoy the enhancements.

Due to my game philosophy there are a few things that really bother me. I mean they piss me the fuck off. Stuff that would cause me to stand up, flip a table and drive my pen into someone's face.
*Railroading- I want to go where I want to go. If you don't like it why the hell are you playing an RPG?
*You can't do X- Wait, last time I checked, I wasn't playing Stephen Hawking. If I want to jump off a ledge onto the back of a giant lizard, by gum I can do it! I might not SUCCEED, but I can do it!
*Nerf- Nerfing is the act of pulling the teeth out of something (like replacing bullets with foam). If you need to nerf a bad guy, then you do not have good enough players. I should have a damn good idea when I should run and when I should fight. If I don't then I deserve to die!
*Wait a minute, you weren't suppose to fight that!- Is it evil? Is it in front of me? Do I have a reason to believe I can kill it? Then YES I am going to try to kill it!
*Your character doesn't know that, its metagaming!-Bullshit. My character is far more into this world then I am. He obviously knows things that I don't. If your dumbass leaves the map with the treasure clearly marked, I'm going straight for that room. It's a game, and I will take advantage of any opportunity you give me. My character is a lucky guesser! Characters might not have any concept of levels, but they probably have a good idea of how the world works. They'll know if they have a chance at killing that beholder. It doesn't matter that I know that a beholder is CR 10 and we're a 12th level party. If I can figure it out, so can my character.

There's a reason that I'm writing all of this, and in my mind its a damn good reason. Others might disagree with it. As a matter of fact, the reason I'm writing this will disagree with it.

Philosophy and Games: Math Makes Worlds III- Remaking the Wheel

So continuing on a theme here, Math Makes Worlds. Today, I was at work, and a tad bit bored, since half the gang either left early or had called off. So I came up with what I thought was a BRILLIANT idea. A high level campaign based on building up political power...

So I quick jotted down some rules, I got a in a grove. I thought that a three month time frame per game turn, and some influence rules, and man, I was writing a mile a minute. Then I started on some quick military unit rules, and thought about a quick way to lay them out on 3x5 cards to represent units. Then I realized something.

I was channelling Birthright.

Goddamn.

Why re-do what has already been done? It's there, all for the taking, but it is an interesting thought, especially when Von and Porky comment on one of my Blog Posts. They both had a really good point, though. With all the RPGs out there in the world, there are tons of rules. It's like a bad translation of a Mac advert, 'We've got Rules for that'.

The point that I was trying to make, and completely missed out on, which is pretty typical me, is that the rules are what make the worlds. Each system has inherent in its Maths what is acceptable and what is not. The Math is what drives it. The thing is that the Maths are enablers and preventers of actions.

The prime differences between games are what the maths allow you to do. When you boil it down, in a game there is no difference between the any particular roll of the dice, the flip of the cards, or whatever weird mechanic that Deadlands used. They are all statistics. What is your percentage chance to take an action or complete an action? It doesn't matter if its a sword swing, a bolt gun blast to the skull, or a charming evening with your intended prey. It is the fluff that makes the Math work.

However, the Maths do double duty. Besides just becoming the crunch that makes the fluff go round, it influences what the fluff allows. That's the point of the whole thing. The limits of the Maths. Everyone talks about 'breaking the game' and oh dear, can I think of some damn good game breakers. It doesn't just happen in wargames with lots of spam, it happens in every game.

Just off the top of my head here's three;
1. World of Darkness- 8th Gen vampire with Clerity 5, 15 actions per round.
2. D&D 3- Monkey Grip, Improved Trip, Knockdown, get a free trip attack if you cause more then 10 damage, and monkey grip allows a Huge weapon. So with an average of 2d8 damage and add in your strength modifier, and instant trips.
3. Trenchcoat- Tales of the Floating Vagabond, pull ANYTHING that is less then 8 pounds out of your trenchcoat.

Now, the Maths made those rules. All right and legal as a judge. Were they properly play tested? Probably not. The Maths are king of all. How the Maths interact with the fluff is the king of all. There has to be a crossing over between the Maths and the background.

In a wargames, since all the action takes place at a birds' eye view, the maths are quick and dirty. The faster you can determine things on the back end, the quicker that you can get on with the game.

In an RPG, the math is more personal, since it was developed as a single player system. Yes, there is a group, but it is the individual that makes it work.

The best way to illustrate this is to flip the roles. Trying to run a mass battle with RPG rules bogs down and takes forever. Trying to run an RPG with wargame rules leaves much to be desired, it is too simplistic. The degree of abstraction strikes again.

The rules are math. The Math is Rules. I really wish that I could explain it better, my lack of education fails me again. The Math creates the reality that the fluff hints at. I think that if I continue I'll just write in circles. So I'm going to stop now, and go and see if I can find my old Birthright stuff, why remake the wheel?

Philosophy and Games: Math Makes Worlds

Ok, so I missed another Monday Night Mordheim, again... Blame it on Christmas burn out. I should be back on target for next week. Back to what I was thinking about though.

Math Makes Worlds.

Every game, RPG, CCG, and wargames is built on a math base. The amount of math and how it is applied. Never has this

simple fact been more apparent to me then last Friday.

See, last Friday, I got to do something that I haven't been able to do in a long ass time. I got to re-unite with my old

High School D&D group. This was interesting, and I'll get to the maths in a moment, but I have to explain myself a bit first.

This was a very cross edition game. With my wargaming background and love of OSR blogs, I have a very first edition mindset. The game started and was primarily played in 2nd edition. The game rules we were using was 3.5 since that was the last time we all were together enough to play. And the DM and about half the other players have been playing mainly 4th ed since it came out.

This is the part that I get to about maths. The thing is that all of these editions of D&D are D&D (except 4th, but that's neither here nor there, and possibly a blog post in and of itself). The game world we were playing and sharing in was shaped through its various incarnations by not just the cool fluff that the DM was reading, but the hard crunch.

Every game's hard crunch, the maths that build the system influence how the game is played. Call it the degree of abstraction. It's a bit of an inverse rule though, with a bit of re-curve backwards. For my love of maths, my lack of a grasp of the simpler stuff precluded me from taking more advanced mathematics, so I am probably using the words wrong. Regardless of my mangling of the words, the point is there.

The degree of abstraction is how much rule detail is in a game. The less rules details, the larger picture a game has and also how less realistic that the game is. Then it re-curves backwards if you have too much detail in the rules, it bogs down and becomes usable only as a small scale combat simulator.

That's interesting. So let's see if I can talk this out in a way that makes since. Many wargames are considered rule heavy, but in all honesty, they aren't. Seriously, especially when compared to the average RPG.

Let me do a compare and contrast. WH40K, is a 250 page rule book, and we'll say a dozen books that when you take out the fluff and pretty pics you get maybe 25 pages of rules. That's a grand total of 550 pages of rules. Conversely, the basic rules for D&D are ALL crunch and there are three necessary books that are all around 250-300 pages, so about 750-1200 pages of rules, easily twice that with 40K, especially since no one needs all the rules for 40K for any given game.

That's a bit much, and not a little bit misleading. It's quite a bit misleading. The thing is that fluff aside, its the mechanics that build the game. There are some people that would argue that some RPGs lack a deeper feel because of a single mechanic, like Star Wars D6 or World of Darkness. However, the lack of differing systems doesn't make it less of a indepth system. It goes back to the reflex curve again. The reflex works both ways.