During our recent cruise, I spent quite some time trying to write a set of wargame rules that would meld the best elements of my PORTABLE WARGAME rules with those of RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES. I had almost completed them by the end of the cruise, but have not had a chance to look at them until today.
I had a bit of a shock when I did.
Almost from the start two things were very obvious. Firstly, that they would work. Secondly, that they were a hybrid monster of the worst kind.
I knew that the rules would work because I had adopted existing mechanisms that were well tried and tested. I even played through a few moves whilst aboard using a hand-drawn grid, some simple playing pieces made from paper, and a number of D6s that I had to hand. (I never go away on a cruise without a small selection of D6s, just for such an eventuality.)
It was only when I began to read my draft that I realised that I had tried to be a bit too clever, and what was supposed to be a simple, quick-play set of rules for fighting Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War battles was cumbersome and not as good as either of the original sets of rules. In creating this hybrid, I had created a monster that involved umpteen dice throws to achieve even relatively simple results. To put it bluntly, it was boring to read, and no doubt would have been tedious to use.
So how does that leave me now? Well, I know that I need to start again, but from a different starting point. I also know some of the pitfalls that I need to avoid ... and will try to ensure that I don't fall into them again.
This could have been very disheartening, but I've had a lot of experience writing wargame rules and have come to realise that I learn more from my failures than I do from my successes. This setback will – I hope – be a temporary one, and will eventually lead to me writing a set of rules that will match my design criteria. They may even be good enough to publish at some time in the future ... and if they are, my regular blog readers will soon know about it!
I had a bit of a shock when I did.
Almost from the start two things were very obvious. Firstly, that they would work. Secondly, that they were a hybrid monster of the worst kind.
I knew that the rules would work because I had adopted existing mechanisms that were well tried and tested. I even played through a few moves whilst aboard using a hand-drawn grid, some simple playing pieces made from paper, and a number of D6s that I had to hand. (I never go away on a cruise without a small selection of D6s, just for such an eventuality.)
It was only when I began to read my draft that I realised that I had tried to be a bit too clever, and what was supposed to be a simple, quick-play set of rules for fighting Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War battles was cumbersome and not as good as either of the original sets of rules. In creating this hybrid, I had created a monster that involved umpteen dice throws to achieve even relatively simple results. To put it bluntly, it was boring to read, and no doubt would have been tedious to use.
So how does that leave me now? Well, I know that I need to start again, but from a different starting point. I also know some of the pitfalls that I need to avoid ... and will try to ensure that I don't fall into them again.
This could have been very disheartening, but I've had a lot of experience writing wargame rules and have come to realise that I learn more from my failures than I do from my successes. This setback will – I hope – be a temporary one, and will eventually lead to me writing a set of rules that will match my design criteria. They may even be good enough to publish at some time in the future ... and if they are, my regular blog readers will soon know about it!
There in a nutshell, you’ve given a very good illustration of the creative process Bob.
ReplyDeleteNundanket,
DeleteVery true. A degree of failure along the way - coupled with critical analysis - can help us improve any project we are developing,
All the best,
Bob
Meanwhile, on another Front.........any news on the PW Colonial book?
ReplyDeleteBarry Carter,
DeleteProgress is being made ... but very slowly. Some of the ideas I was trying out in my new WW2 rules were being considered for inclusion in the PCW, and still might make an appearance in a modified form,
All the best,
Bob
All part of the process isn't it? A ruleset isn't finished when everything that could be added has been added; it is finished when everything that can be omitted has been struck out...
ReplyDeleteJWH,
DeleteThe rules fell foul of Cordery’s First Rules of Wargame Design, which states that:
'If players consistently ignore a rule because it does not make sense or hinders the flow of the wargame, then the rule should be discarded. If players do not notice that it has gone, then it probably should not have been there in the first place.'
As I’ve said many times when talking to the post-grad students at KCL:
‘Simplify, Simplify, and SIMPLIFY!’
All the best,
Bob
I'm never a fan of "roll a dice to see if so and so happens", and then rolling again for something else and so on. It's useful if you need it for a solo game, but otherwise it sometimes speaks of going for an easy solution. You might have got a lucky escape there, - but it is a shame you spent a holiday getting back to where you started on the rule writing front.
ReplyDeleteTrebian,
DeleteFrom my point of view, the main problem with the rules was that they used far too many dice to determine combat results.
The time I spent writing whilst on the cruise wasn’t totally wasted as I will be able to include some of the ideas I worked on in other sets of rules.
All the best,
Bob