Why are Wargames Rules so Complicated ... ?

[John Cook]

The frustration is not the dice but the apparent partiality of results ... which is the same whatever random method you use, in my experience. At times it feels as though the gods of the RNG are against you.

But the alternative is the sterility of games like chess or draughts.

I'll live with the frustration, thanks.

Therein lies the problem.  Dice can throw up unacceptably extreme and inconsistent results, far too often, which is one reason stopped wargaming for a while in the late 80s.  As for chess being sterile, I just give up

[Ithoriel]

My definition of a good game is one that is easy to learn but hard to master, that I win because I am skillful but lose because I was unlucky.

I found chess dull beyond belief despite winning far more than I lost. It has no soul.

[FierceKitty]

My definition of a good game is one that is easy to learn but hard to master, that I win because I am skillful but lose because I was unlucky.

I found chess dull beyond belief despite winning far more than I lost. It has no soul.

There are a lot of clever people who might not entirely support you in that opinion.

[John Cook]

There are a lot of clever people who might not entirely support you in that opinion.

[Nirnman]

Not having bothered to read through the rest of the replies to me the answer is simple it is to try and thwart the "RULES LAWYERS" those persons who if it "isn't in the rules " will try totwist things to their advantage.

[steve_holmes_11]

My definition of a good game is one that is easy to learn but hard to master, that I win because I am skillful but lose because I was unlucky.

I found chess dull beyond belief despite winning far more than I lost. It has no soul.

I once played in a many against an internetional master (chess event).
After the games he stayed behind to answer questions and chat in general.
Most of the talk went over my head "Strengths of the Sicilian Bishop", "Capablanca's opening in the third Paris game".

One bit that stuck with me, and applies to many other fields of learning was "fluency".
At come point just after "Master" the players stop thinking in terms of rules, and simply visualise the board as an extension of the world.
I compared it with trying to learn a language, where you'll be head down in a book agonising whether soap is masculine or feminine, but after 6 months in country, you're happily chatting away, making the odd mistake, but no longer thinking about the book.

I suspect this is the point where you look into the soul of chess.
If you're prepared to put in the hard work.
(Is it worth it?)

[Leman]

There are a lot of clever people who might not entirely support you in that opinion.

I'm with you on that FK. Ditch water is far more fascinating.

[DecemDave]

I'm with you on that FK. Ditch water is far more fascinating.

Yes that is fascinating.  What are the forum expert painters recommendations for 10mm ditch water on bases?   I've tried various combinations at larger scales of various colours and lots of clear gloss but I'm not happy with the results. 

[mmcv]

I suppose a good rule set should allow for the variations of the chance to fall within mostly expected parameters so the abject failures and absolute successes feel more dramatic.

Regarding chess and the like, it's a very different game, decision making is absolute in that as there is no friction beyond that brought by the opponent and your own skill level. So can see how that appeals to those who are drawn to the "static" patterns and complete information of the game state.

When I'm in the mood for abstract games like that I usually find I end up gravitating to Go as giving an element of that while still allowing a lot of creative freedom. It does fit well the easy to learn difficult to master mantra.

As for snakes and ladders...  There are a lot of board and video games that fall into similar traps, reducing the decision making and elevating the chance too much. I'm sure there's wargames the same. It's all about finding that sweet spot between decision making, information availability, control and friction that makes a good set of rules. So you're playing the battle, not the rules.

[Raider4]

There are a lot of clever people who might not entirely support you in that opinion.

And that matters to me how, exactly? (not just talking about chess - applies to anything)

Yes that is fascinating.  What are the forum expert painters recommendations for 10mm ditch water on bases?

Don't use blue!

[John Cook]

And that matters to me how, exactly? (not just talking about chess - applies to anything)

I have a suspicion that FK was not addressing you exclusively. 

[John Cook]

Not having bothered to read through the rest of the replies to me the answer is simple it is to try and thwart the "RULES LAWYERS" those persons who if it "isn't in the rules " will try totwist things to their advantage.

Indeed so.  That is the bane of most clubs, in my opinion.  The only club I've ever known where that wasn't the case was the group I belonged to in Germany thirty years ago which comprised a dozen members, all military from a colonel (late REME) to an RAF corporal, and just about every rank in between. 

There is also a complaint here, it seems, that dice are unreliable generators of random numbers because they are, somehow, partial.  I'm not sure that is possible for dice to favour one side over another, but it is certainly the case that most cheap commercially produced dice are biased because they are not uniformly dense.  This applies to standard dice, particularly the ones with rounded edges, and even more to those with multiple, ten or more, sides. 

A simple way to test them is to float them in a salt water solution and see what side they tend to return to after you've agitated them.  If they return to that same face more often than not they are not fair dice.  I tried this years ago in an attempt to produce a set of fair dice and found that so-called razor dice (sharp edges) used in casinos were far and away the fairest.  You get what you pay for – a set of half a dozen good casino-standard dice can cost up to £15.  But, even those produce bizarre and, frankly, unrealistic random results sometimes.  But, that is what they were intended to do in a gambling context – they were not intended for wargaming so one can't really complain.

So, if you must use dice, use casino-standard razor dice and make sure that every throw is on the same surface – that makes a difference too.

[mmcv]

I suspect there's a certain element of tongue in cheek when it comes to complaints over dice rolls, and if not, then someone is probably taking things a little too seriously! I'm sure there are some of those out there. Granted I'm speaking as a mostly solo gamer or when playing with others taking an approach of what makes sense and is fun over rule precision.

[Raider4]

I have a suspicion that FK was not addressing you exclusively. 

Yeah, I get that

I just fail to see how what other people think - even if they are clever - affects me - or you, or anyone else - when we're talking about a subjective opinion.

e.g. If I think that the Ramones are world's greatest ever rock band, it really doesn't matter to me if an enormous amount of people disagree.

Same with chess. I have an opinion on it's worth and enjoyment factor. Doesn't matter if everyone else agrees or disagrees.

[Raider4]

So, if you must use dice, use casino-standard razor dice and make sure that every throw is on the same surface – that makes a difference too.

And replace them often! I understand that they're quite brittle, and the straight edges will get chipped & rounded.