Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bluenose" data-source="post: 6241211" data-attributes="member: 49017">The only addition I'd make to that is that some wargames (very much more true on boardgames than mini-games) are specifically meant to recreate a specific battle or part of a battle, in which case scenario design and army selection are out of the players' hands. At least in theory. That's where you get long threads on boards where people are trying to determine which units are involved, what the terrain is really like, and other things. That's somewhat unusual in minis games but not unknown. I have doubts about some of those. Complexity increases over Time - why is that necessary or desirable? Why is it good for a character to start off at less than the player wants to be and grow into it, or start off as what the player wants and then add more mechanical complexity to that? If a player is fine with what their character can do, adding more mechanical complexity to increase that is not something that they'd desire. Games can add abilities without increasing complexity to a noticeable degree, especially with systems where the mechanics are relatively unified to start with. Requires Strategic Thinking. I find that tends  to mean a strong player-side character building game - I need Feat X and Skill Y by Level Z, so that I can get into Prestige Class Omega. Or it's connected with the world, and a sandbox style of play where a character/group develop with a long term aim in mind. The second is to my taste but seems to preclude some of what happens in "Adventure Path" campaigns where the GM is often encouraged to keep on the particular route planned by the module writers. So looking at it even the two tips you consider useful are ones that I'd only consider helpful in designing a particular style of game, one that I don't find particularly desirable for all circumstances.</blockquote>

Verification