Game Complexity, Good or Bad?
Complex or not?
That question has dominated my thoughts since I first began
designing. At least when I first started designing my own games. For years, I
designed add-ons, usually magazine add-ons, for other folks’ designs. Back then
there was no question; the designer had already decided how complex his or her
design would be.
But starting with the unpublished Ring of Hills and
continuing into Lock ‘n Load and the slew of designs that followed, I struggled
with complexity. I’ve always felt that simpler is better. I was under the
misperception that if I make a simple wargame, that I could bring more people
into the hobby. I was wrong.
 |
| Not my game collection. |
Simpler often is better. Clever designs prune rules, they
don’t add them. That’s always been my problem with Advanced Squad Leader. Yep,
it covers everything, but it also has a rule for everything, even the
everythings that only happen once in a blue moon. Unfortunately, what we as
wargamers consider simple is not what the general gaming public considers
simple.
Case in point, Lock ‘n Load. I designed the game to be
simple, accessible. Looking back, I realize that I was naïve. Yes, LnL is
somewhat less complex than your typical squad-based game, but is many times
more complex than even the most complex Euro games. It will be the rare bird
that stumbles onto Lock ‘n Load as a first game, and is immediately hooked on
gaming, let alone wargaming. To be plain, I feel it is difficult, if not
impossible, to design a historically authentic beginner-level wargame, but
that’s okay. Games like ARS Victor and Memoir ’44, while not historically
authentic, are fun and share many of the same concepts as their more
complicated brethren.
So where is this going? I’m not sure. I’ve played a couple
of complex wargames lately, more to work out my brain than to have fun. And you
know what? I really enjoyed them. There is a certain richness to well-written,
yet deep rules. So bottom line? Maybe wargames are just semi-complex by nature and folks that like the genre and the complexity will continue to play, even if that playing means pouring through 60 pages of rules.
Bottom line, I guess there is hope for the Hills of
Stanley after all.
Be sure to check out NIGHT OF MAN, a science-fiction, card-driven, board and counter, tactical battle game, designed by Mark H. Walker and published by Flying Pig Games. It is on Kickstarter until December 31st. You can view the Kickstarter page and place a pledge right here.
Mark H. Walker served 23 years in the United States Navy, most of them as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal diver, he is the designer of the Lock 'n Load, World at War, and Nations at War series of games. He has quite a few new titles up his sleeve. Stay tuned. Sign up for his newsletter to get design insights, game updates, and stuff.
Be sure to check out NIGHT OF MAN, a science-fiction, card-driven, board and counter, tactical battle game, designed by Mark H. Walker and published by Flying Pig Games. It is on Kickstarter until December 31st. You can view the Kickstarter page and place a pledge right here.
Mark H. Walker served 23 years in the United States Navy, most of them as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal diver, he is the designer of the Lock 'n Load, World at War, and Nations at War series of games. He has quite a few new titles up his sleeve. Stay tuned. Sign up for his newsletter to get design insights, game updates, and stuff.
Comments
I think the distain to games like M'44 is that there is a disconnect between the actual mecanics and the WWII setting, other then that the game ifself is quite enjoyable once you let go of that aspect.
With very few rules you can achieve the same general historical outcomes as more complex games, yeah sure you don't get the same level of detail... But it's a noble trade-off. For example: Hold Fast: Russia 1941-1942 (6 page of rules) vs. EastFront II (27 pages).
So, all in all, wargames will always be more complex or else they lose their simulational qualities and delve into the realm of pure "games". The job of the designer is to know how much is needed to have an effective simulation without bloating the system in exceptions and minute detail that is irrelevant. A good example I think is the whole vehicule rules from Lock 'N Load. On one side you have much more streamlined rules for Infantry fighting (that drew inspiration from Storm over Arnhem) and once you get tanks in the mix you have to refer to charts and to-hit numbers, then once you hit you have to roll for outcome, etc.The combat system was not even the same as infantry and it took way too long to resolve those portions. Then add rules for rubbling houses, infantry embarking, riding on top of tanks, etc. It's just a bit too much for me and it makes coming back to the game after a hiatus a chore. Now compare that to the abstracted tank rules in a game like Thunder at Cassino (not the same scale but still a tactical game): tanks cannot be targeted long-range, but can be targeted in close combat by infantry. Anti-tank weapons can fire individually at tanks. Infantry will offer protection to tanks. Tanks have a hard time moving in rubbled areas, streets needs to be cleared by engineers. Everything is abstracted but those simple rules offer strategies and tactics that respect their real-life attributes.
That's my two cents on the issue. :)