Continuing
this series of post about some game design concepts, I’d like to talk about the
dreadful M&M syndrome, where M&M means “Markers & Modifiers”.
The
syndrome affects many game designers and has two major consequences on the related
games: a) 50% of your wonderful terrain, for which you spent money and remarkable
effort - building from scratch hills, trees and houses - is covered by papers with
CRT tables and modifiers; b) your miniatures are almost invisible under a flood
of markers (Disorder level, Fatigue, Losses, Orders, Moved this turn, Morale
status, Hidden unit, Overwatch and so forth..).
Those of
you who played my games know my idiosyncrasy
about markers: every time I am forced to introduce a marker in a game I
perceive it like a personal defeat, therefore I try all possible alternatives
before doing so.
It goes without saying that it is no easy task. If you want to avoid bookkeeping (another idiosyncrasy), casualty removal AND markers you are in trouble.
Many times I asked myself if I’m too “integralist” on this subject: in the end, most players/games out there do not even consider this as a problem, so I could avoid to squeeze my brain in order to find a solution, but it’s stronger than me . Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose: but in DSLB I succeeded in limiting them to 1-2 (DIS level and reaction) in SDS just one (loaded/discharged weapon).
It goes without saying that it is no easy task. If you want to avoid bookkeeping (another idiosyncrasy), casualty removal AND markers you are in trouble.
Many times I asked myself if I’m too “integralist” on this subject: in the end, most players/games out there do not even consider this as a problem, so I could avoid to squeeze my brain in order to find a solution, but it’s stronger than me . Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose: but in DSLB I succeeded in limiting them to 1-2 (DIS level and reaction) in SDS just one (loaded/discharged weapon).
Modifiers
are another crux desperationis for
me. In my mind, they should be so few, that after 2-3 times you refer to the
table, you must be able to remember ALL OF THEM easily.
I start to
pack them all under 3 major groups: troop quality and quantity, terrain advantage
and leadership. Then I write down as many of them as I can figure out. When the
list is finished, the real work (eliminate them and including them somewhere in
the game mechanics) starts. One key factor is to avoid double jeopardy
modifiers, i.e. those that penalize twice (or reward twice) units. Sometimes
they are very subtle but if you watch carefully, you should find some in many rules
sets out there.
Modifiers
must also be intuitive, possibly (but this is difficult) all “up” or “down” and
– possibly again – should not require complicated math: only additions or
subtractions. You may add one multiplication, not more and only if unavoidable.
Much better if you just ADD physical elements (dice for instance) and do not
add to the dice result. This is particularly true if you roll many dice.
One final
note: do NOT indulge to sporadic aspects or situations, nor try to represent
everything with modifiers. If the bugler of the 354th Fringibuffo Lancers
once killed 15 enemies just using the trumpet at the Battle of Zippoflex, don’t
give “+1” to trumpeters (as many gamers would require you to do)….
Comments
are – as usual – welcome.
Agreed Sergio. I'm really not a fan of markers at all.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteand what about Modifiers?
Modifiers are a necessary part of any wargame. Just so long as there's not vast amounts of them to trawl through every turn!
DeleteOK we're in synch...
ReplyDeleteCheers
I don't mind markers, provided that they are (a) few and (b) blend in with the battlefield by being casualties, debris &c. I have been thinking along the lines of indicating a unit's condition by altering the relative positions and/or removing separate individual figures portraying an officer, colour bearer, sergeant and musician. These figures would thus be both aesthetically pleasing and convey information to the players.
ReplyDeleteAs for modifiers, the fewer the better. One solution might be to have the usual lists but rule that where several factors applied, only the two most significant (ie largest +/- number) should be applied. Alternatively, something along these lines:
1-2 negative factors: slight disadvantage -1
3-5 negative factors: disadvantage -2
5+ negative factors: severe disadvantage -3
and similarly for positive factors.