Yesterday, Gary Sheffield and I ran a session at VCOW2021 entitled LOCKDOWN AND THE PORTABLE WARGAME. The first part of the session was a PowerPoint display and talk by me that explained the origins of the rules, the basic structure used, and the game mechanisms (including the rationale behind them) that I chose to incorporate.
The second (and longer) part of the session was a battle fought remotely by six players divided into two side (Bluvia and Grevia) which was umpired by Gary with my assistance. He adjudicated the moves and the combat, and I recorded each unit’s position (using the Movement Record Sheet), ...
... the individual unit’s Strength Points, and each sides cumulative loses (using the Casualty Record Sheet and Exhaustion Point track).
The feedback during and after the battle was very positive, and yet again showed why COW (and VCOW) is such a useful place to test a set of wargame rules. In this case, this was the first time I had been involved in a PORTABLE WARGAME with three players per side, and it certainly threw up several points that I need to address. One of these is the Close Combat system, and everyone seemed to feel that there was a need to move to a ‘high score is good result, and low score is a bad result’ system. I also discovered that quite a few players preferred to throw for the effect of the Close Combat on their opponent’s unit rather than on their own.
COW (and now VCOW) has always been a place where a wargame designer could be assured of feedback from critical friends. In other words, it is somewhere where one's work can be subjected to constructive and useful criticism that is designed to help a designer to improve their rules. Amongst mainstream wargamers it would appear that anyone can criticise somebody else’s rules in a negative way, but it takes a particular type of wargamer who can make useful criticisms and helpful suggestions. Luckily for me, COW and VCOW attract that sort of attendee, and I value their input.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read and played PW, rolling for the casualties on my own side seemed odd - simply because other rules did not do it. On reflection, however, I think I prefer it because it introduces a degree of uncertainty about the enemy units' condition (unless one has an amazing memory) and can be combined with systems such as my 'Flagging Spirits' to suggest morale states visually. In a 'closed' PW game the umpire would roll the dice and only give players a rough idea of losses.
But those who prefer the traditional system can stick with it. It's an option that doesn't affect the actual mechanics of the rules, so no rewriting is necessary - just a note that players can choose which system to use, just as they can choose different activation systems.
High dice scores for 'good results' is intuitive, but if one is rolling for one's own side, a 'good' result is zero hits/losses. Perhaps high dice scores = high casualties is a better way of putting it?
Best wishes, Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteThe Close Combat system as it is attracts a Marmite reaction from a lot of users. Some hate it, some love it, and some have come to like it after they have used it, this came out during the game and post-game feedback. It is, therefore, something that I need to address ... if only to explain in greater detail how it works.
My personal preference is to roll for effect on my own units rather than on the opponent’s ... but not everyone likes to do that. I may have to put in an alternative for those players. The results will be the same ... but the mechanism will be slightly different.
High scores = high casualties is an excellent way to sum it up!
All the best,
Bob
One of the things I dislike in rules is incensistency in die rolling. It has always been an oddity to me that some rules use die rolls such as 4-6 is a hit, but 1-3 is a save on morale...
ReplyDeleteIt is much easier to remember that rolling low or roling high is always what you are looking for.
In my Martian Empires rules, rolling low on 2D6 is always what you are looking for...
Mike Lewis,
DeleteTrying to be consistent with dice rolls is something that I aim for, and any changes that I make to my Close Combat system will reflect that.
All the best,
Bob
Feedback is good, critical but positive feedback is even better.
ReplyDeleteOn a diffferent note. I did try to look at the die roll as a "saving throw" vs an automatic hit by the enemy attack but since shooting didn't work the same way it didn't quite fit. Sometimes in war and in games the emotional response of those involved is as important as the physical aspects.
Ross Mac,
DeleteOne of the standout strengths of WD/COW/VCOW has been the the presence of so many ‘critical friends’. Presenting a session is very much like being peer reviewed by academics BUT without the potential for partisan comments by those taking part.
I’ve never been much of a fan of ‘saving throws’ although hardline Featherstone supporters swear by them.
All the best,
Bob
I note that in both The Portable Wargame (p47 + p76) and Developing The Portable Wargame (p32 + p75) a unit hits its opponent in close combat on a 5+. However in The Portable Colonial Wargame (p20 + p57) a unit avoids being hit in close combat on a 3+.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these rolls equate rolling high with being good for the unit that's rolling, so that abides by the psychology of numbers. But I'm wondering why this initial close combat dice roll changed in The Portable Colonial Wargame from "dealing damage" to "avoiding harm"?
In The Portable Colonial Wargame, it seems to be replicating what a "saving throw" does, and that is covered to some extent by the subsequent dice roll in the "Resolving Hits on Units" section.
I'm puzzled that your players felt that close combat needed to move to a 'high score is good result, and low score is a bad result' system, because as far as I can see, it already is. Did the confusion over the psychology of numbers come from the fact that the players were rolling for the other side? So what was a high number for them, was actually a good result for the other player and vice versa?
I must point out, that as far as I'm concerned, the "Resolving Hits on Units" section, abides by the psychology of numbers, as Elite units have more chances to get a result that gives them options by rolling high. Poor units have less chances to get a result that gives them options by rolling high.
Donjondo,
DeleteThe changes to the mechanisms as the series developed were a reflection of the feedback I got from players. It was never intended to be a ‘saving throw’, although I see that it could be viewed in that way,
The main stumbling block that some players have is accepting that they are throwing to see the effect on their unit and not the enemy. The big advantage of the system as it is laid down in PCW is the fact that the bonuses and penalties are compatible,
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob, thank you for your reply. I've mulled it over, and I'm afraid I'm still struggling to get my head around it. Is there any chance you could expand on this slightly? "The big advantage of the system as it is laid down in PCW is the fact that the bonuses and penalties are compatible". Many thanks in advance.
DeleteDonjondo,
DeleteIf you compare the bonuses and penalties on page 18 (Small Arms and Machine Gun Fire) and page 19 (Close Combat rules), you will see that they are very similar/compatible or in some cases, identical. This makes it easier for players to remember them.
All the best,
Bob
I know what you mean here, having played a fair amount of role playing games. High/low/good/bad seems to switch capriciously.
ReplyDeleteI've been developing a simple set of RPG rules to play with my twin boys, age 10 this year, when they took an interest in it. My goal was to keep it as simple, quick and "readable" for them as possible. While it works there are two separate charts for conflict. There's the Good Guys Hitting Bad Guys chart and a flip-flopped chart for Bad Guys Hitting Good Guys. It all got very confusing and I abandoned the idea for a simple Hitting The Other Guy chart. It follows "low is bad, high is good" and requires far less mental gymnastics when I'm already busy telling an interactive story.
Most RPGs and GMs I've seen encourage the players to roll for the damage they do. It seems to do a few things psychologically. First it gives the player a sense of agency, like they're actually swinging their battleaxe. Second, it lets them accept responsibility for the results. They are less likely to pawn a bad result off on someone else. Finally it keeps them knowing what they should know and unsure of what they shouldn't as has been said above.
Your unit record charts are nice! They'd fit on an index card easily. I'll have to draw up my own and print a few on cards to keep in my pizza box PWG.
I wish I could have been more involved in the gaming aspect of VCOW2021 but I was happy to sit in for the first day. I'll schedule my weekend a little more carefully next year.
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteI’m glad that you enjoyed taking part in VCOW, and it was great to put a face and voice to the name.
You make some interesting points about keeping dice rolling mechanisms as quick, simple, and easy to use as possible whilst also using them to involve the players on a personal level. The rationale behind my current mechanism is that a commander will know the effect of combat on their unit, but not what damage their unit has inflicted on the enemy.
Do you have a copy of the briefing for the PW battle that was staged at VCOW? It contains examples of the record sheets, and I’ll send you a briefing if you haven’t already got a copy.
All the best,
Bob
I don't remember receiving any briefings for any of the games. I did get the list of links and the schedule. I did see your blog post about the Battle of Two Hills Farm. I'd love to read over the briefing if you'd pass it on.
DeleteMr. Pavone,
DeleteI’ll send you the Briefings etc., for the Battle of Two Hills Farm later today.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob. I enjoyed the session yesterday. I thought it was very clever the way you and Gary carefully planned and stage managed the confusion around high/low dice throws for combat resolution to maximise audience engagement and discussion! Cheers
ReplyDeleteSimon
Simon,
DeleteI’m very pleased that you enjoyed yesterday session, even if Gary and I appeared to be using slightly different versions of the rules! We should have run through the game beforehand to make sure that there was no confusion, but pressure of time prevented that.
All the best,
Bob
An intersting article, with equally interesting responses. As I usually play solo, how the close combat mechanics actually work probably doesn't matter all that much, thought I I recall correctly, some modifications I suggested in the wake of my 'Quatre Bras' battle were predicated upon the system 'as she is writ.'
ReplyDeleteOn the matter of 'high rolls good, low rolls bad', I much preferred to see a mix. The reason came from experience (usually observational, from the other side of the table) of runs of high and low scores. Switching from high to low depending on context doesn't make any difference to probabilities but is a kind of (psychological) insurance against such runs.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteAlmost all my PW battles are fought solo or against Garry Sheffield, and problems with the Close Combat mechanism haven’t arisen.
Since I wrote this blog post, I’ve gone through the various versions of the Close Combat system and have decided that I want to keep the bonus and penalties for both combat systems to be the same, and will design the Close Combat system accordingly.
All the best,
Bob
Good session, I came away with both insights and appreciation on the structure of the Portable Wargame. All good stuff, I intend to run a Portable game or two in the coming weeks and months :) It is great to get inside the mind of the "designer" and as the son and grandson of an artillery man, your insight into the the placement of guns was simple in execution but profound in execution of the Portable Wargame. Well played or should I say designed. Mucho respecto!
ReplyDeleteGeordie an Exile FoG,
DeleteWe rather pushed the envelop by trying to run a three-a-side online game ... and just about managed to pull it off.
I’m glad that you found the session useful. I’m thinking of turning my bit of the presentation into a YouTube video that PW users can watch. It might help them understand how the rules can about and how they are a toolbox rather than a codex.
All the best,
Bob
YouTube .. good idea .. very good idea .. if I hear Peoples's Grandson's are having You Tube Channels, then why not the Portable Wargame
DeleteGeordie an Exile FoG,
DeleteI’ve had some experience of creating videos for YouTube, and it would make sense to make one about the PW.
All the best,
Bob