Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 3825097" data-attributes="member: 1645">I'm reminded of the old conflict between free and rigid <a href="http://www.sawargamer.co.za/Articles/showArticle.asp?Art=31" target="_blank">Kriegspiel</a>: Very briefly, the original Prussian Army wargame was designed to test staff procedures and tactical understanding, and was introduced in 1824. It used maps or even detailed terrain models, and lead, or wooden blocks to represent troops. Red and Blue teams were housed in separate rooms, with an umpire who used complex rules to decide which course of action argued by the players would prevail. The umpires would move from room to room collecting orders, and would then retire to a third room to pour over the numerous tables and charts that constituted the rules. This system, however, proved cumbersome and time-consuming, and tended to reduce the umpires, often senior officers to the level of clerks, so by the time of the Franco-Prussian War, the complex rule book was replaced by an umpire who was free to use his own knowledge, experience, and intuition to make rulings, hence the appellation, free kriegspiel. This innovation is credited to General von verdy du Vernois, and reduced time delays considerably. It also allowed the umpire to take a more didactic role as very often the outcomes of engagements were moderated by the umpire to teach particular lessons. [...] However, it seems to me that the most powerful idea is that of an umpire whose rulings replace a rule book. Many gamers may feel this an unwelcome idea, in that it introduces an unwanted subjectivity to any wargame, however, an umpire is no more, nor no less subjective than a set of rules, itself an expression of the subjectivity of the rules designer. In fact, in two important respects, an umpire rather than a rule-book might benefit a tabletop game. Firstly, the players need not study a rulebook before they can play a game. This is especially important for minority periods where players might not be prepared to invest in the time and expense of learning a new set of rules. In the Old Eds game, for example, none of us had even read the rules before the game. It was also, I think, my first WW2 game ever. Players can rather devote time to picking up some of the historical background or militray research. I certainly needed this. While able to tell a javelin from a ravelin, the different types of WW2 hardware were quite new to me, and my team was faced with a senior commander constantly asking questions such as, "Is this any good against armour?" Secondly, an umpire can free players up from the hypnotic bonds of detail, and allow a concentration on orders and planning instead. Games can thus become orders-based, reflecting the concerns of command, rather than tactical affairs in which minute manouevering and measurement count more than planning and orders.</blockquote>

Verification