....but for goodness sake let's do it RIGHT!!!
My recent foray back into the world of the Napoleonic war game has given me much continued thought over the last few days. Aside from reigniting my interest in the era as a whole it was, as I mentioned previously, an object lesson in the importance of being properly prepared for a game beforehand. It is something I shall consider more carefully when planning my next action for sure as the time I have for gaming is limited and so making the most efficient use of the time available is an important consideration. Obviously one could plan a game to within an inch of its life and still have it turn out like a lemon on the day but at least all of the basics would have been covered beforehand.
With this in mind I have given myself a mental checklist of points to be covered before even a single dice is rolled. These are mostly obvious but as my own recent experience has shown, even a veteran of some 40 years of gaming can overlook something really basic!
- Scenario - the game itself - is it (to use a financial services term) 'clear, fair and not misleading?'
- Rules - understood and with the appropriate charts and tables etc to hand - unless the game is a designated play test
- Terrain - as required - is it readily available?
- Forces - the right toys or if 'subbing' units due to non-availability then clarity of type and purpose e.g. 'I shall use that unit of Moscow militia as the Pavlov grenadiers as the scenario needs them but I don't have the correct figures'
- Time - in the words of the Magners cider TV advert - 'Time, dedicated to you'
This is all straightforward stuff and so I hope that by adhering to this approach I will avoid a repetition of my earlier frustration!
Game number 2 of 2012 will take place over the weekend and I have already ticked off most of the above list in readiness.
6 comments:
Simply excellent coverage of the 'hidden basics' of game preparation.
Such things are hardly ever discussed in the various rules sets and you hit on them very well.
One other that I should like to add, confirmed game player participation.
More than once I have set aside the time to game only to have the key player or players be late or not arrive at all ... that hurts more than a call the night before to find out plans need to be changed.
Hi MurdocK,
Thank you sir! For me the confirmed player participation angle is something I have been guilty of on many occasions due to work or commuting difficulties so I know how frustrating that can be - both as an organiser or as a particpant. It is for that reason alone I have scaled back my club activities in favour of solo efforts.
In theory there is less to go wrong!
All the best,
DC
"clear, fair, and not misleading"
Interesting statement, none of these would be something I would apply to my own solo gaming. Which is probably why I was puzzled about your earlier comment about being frustrated. Very much looking forward to your progress along the Napoleonic line. Actually looking forward to all your campaigns.
Thanks for sharing!
Hi Dave,
I suppose really it was as much a mission statement as anything - clear, in that the rules and scenario were fully understood (and this is important even from a solo perspective!), fair, in that both sides have the capability of fulfilling their objectives (that does not mean both sides have a chance of winning - think of the Kobiyashi Maru) and not misleading is really a reinforcement of the other two points.
I was frustrated because I rushed the preparation and so the game was not as complete as it could have been!
The mark 2 version will rectify the shortcomings of the first - and then some!
All the best,
DC
Exactly! I don't have a "mission statement" but instead seem to follow an objective.
Recently played a solo game with the objective being to try Ross's MacDuff rules. But deciding my 1914 French & German figures did the best job of matching Ross organization for the rules so I added the objective of trying the rules on the 1914 battlefield, which meant adding rules for machineguns and bolt action rifles.
On the battlefield the objective was that both sides wanted to secure a hill on their flank, mostly to keep it out of the opponent's hands. Made some quick rules for troops entering the battlefield and started tossing dice.
Summary: nothing clear or fair, and results could be misleading. But I felt the entire exercise was a most enjoyable success.
We approach the idea of a solo playtest differently. Nothing wrong with that.
Thanks
Hi Dave,
Vive la Difference! I say - there are no right or wrong ways to carry out a play test and it is very much what suits the individual(s).
I must confess that 'winging it' as you go along is something I often do so we are in good company!
All the best,
DC
Post a Comment