One of my kids was into Warhammer 40K. He's realized now just how bad of a game it really is, and we've been looking for a replacement.
In this search, he came across a game called Infinity and I decided to take a look at it. It's not a very good game, and there's a lot to take apart as a result. In fact, I consider 40K better than it. It's not a RPG and so I won't delve too deep into it. But it so happens to have a rather brain dead stupid core die mechanic that I've seen in RPGs before. And that deserves a comment.
Basically the system resolves things with each player making a opposed d20 roll. Whoever rolls higher but still under his skill rating wins. So a skill of 14 with range weapons might fire at a defender with a skill of 12, whoever rolls higher wins, as long as the first guy doesn't roll a 15+ and the second roll a 13+.
There's some other minor details, but they don't significantly modify my core point that this system manages to meet the Two S Rule: Simple and Stupid.
Just consider it for a moment. In a game you don't want things missing most of the time, that's not fun for most players. But if you're using dice, you don't want to hit all the time either.
So what does that mean for the range of possible skill numbers? That's right, it's very narrow. I would expect them to range from... oh 12 up to about 16. And sure enough, that's where most of the units in the game fall (you can look at a number of them online at the link above). There's some exceptions (especially for cannon fodder type units), but most of the standard units fall right into that line.
To make that narrow range even worse, the game uses a linear die d20 die roll.
The end result is to make unit skill of minor importance, i.e. it's very difficult to move far away from a coin flip in your chances unless you really pile the modifiers on.
Makes for a very limited game, basically only those settings where everyone is roughly equal. That hardly seems the point of games like this but then I'm not a member in good standing with the modern wargame crowd. Maybe they dig pointless differences.
Combined with other issues, we quickly discarded it as a option.
Vortex however is looking interesting...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Some questions...
Is it fair to say that in an RPG we should generally expect to see a greater disparity between the skill of opponents (lower for NPCs/monsters; higher for PCs) than in a “player versus player” wargame?
When opponent’s are roughly equal, wouldn’t you expect the outcome to be essentially a coin-flip unless you pile on the modifiers?
Or is your complaint about the need to “pile on” the modifiers? If you need fewer modifiers to make a significant difference, isn’t that making skill less important?
Or are you saying that the defender’s skill shouldn’t be factored in. Because it is more fun if everyone is succeeding most of the time?
To take the questions in order:
1. Depends upon the Wargame. Few games have the narrow range (25% of the die used in resolution) found in Infinity, even historical ones.
Warhammer uses 5/6th its die to represent skill, Vortex uses 140% of its die, etc. These are games playing in the same space (i.e. sci-fi tactical skrimish wargame).
2. Yes, but I want a game that can model unequal opponents. That it couldn't was my whole point.
3. Modifiers aren't 'skill', they're modifiers to the skill, at least in the sort of design I'm talking about in this article.
4. Nope, didn't say this at all. I said die rolls with a target under (roll under x) should succeed most of the time be it attacker or defender. Players tend to get disgusted otherwise.
1 & 2. Well, there’s no reason you can’t make up your own units with skills outside the range of the given units, right?
3. Yeah, I get that. What I’m saying is that if you need lots of non-skill modifiers to have the same effect as a small change in skill, then that means skill is the most important factor. So needing to pile on the modifiers sounds like a good thing to me. (But this now seems not so important to me understanding what you’re saying.)
4. Well, then you get into the thing that some games have where the you get this long series of rolls waiting for someone to fail. And I’ve seen that annoy players just as much—and sometimes more—than a <50% chance of success. This is one of the reasons I’ve been wanting to try this kind of “blackjack” mechanic. It seems like a decent compromise.
1 & 2: After saying that it's unenjoyable to have your skill rolls fail all the time and thus the skill range is limited- you're suggesting now that I... have them fail all the time to have a wider skill range?
I think you've completely missed the point.
3. Sigh. No, it doesn't mean that.
For skill to be the most important factor, it's range and effect must by defintion exceed that of the modifiers.
Infinity requires the addition of both skill and modifiers to move significantly away from a 50/50 chance. That means that individually both are insignificant.
4. There are far more options than making skill meaningless by too narrow a range and "waiting for someone to fail".
But by all means, go play yahtzee if you like.
Of course I missed the point. That’s why I’m asking these questions. ^_^
It seems that Brian is looking for a game where there are cannon fodder and great individual heroes (not to mention various levels and types in between).
This system is only capable of creating equal squads and seeing who can best take care of the modifiers and tactics.
If that is what this is, it would explain why it holds no appeal for me or him. If I wanted that, I would play chess. Any piece can take any other piece.
The "other minor details" that are glossed over are actually quite important here.
An attacker with an autofire weapon (which is nearly always) can roll multiple dice, usually 3 at once. The defender can't. Scoring an ambush can deny the opponent a reaction as well.
The resolution mechanic is nearly a coin flip, but the entire point of the game is to use tactics in order to deny the opponent an equal fighting chance.
Which is why, besides the basic cannon fodder, every unit has a list of special tricks and abilities. A Ballistic Skill of 12 or 14 isn't what makes all the difference, it's about whether one unit can cloak and the other can para-jump into the battlefield after all other units have already been put onto the battlefield.
Even if what Sage Genesis points were correct- none of them excuses a poor base mechanic in the game.
But he's not really correct, because none of it is really good.
The system tries to be Magic the Gathering in mini form with its 'cool' combos and 'neat' tricks (i.e. the special abilities).
But it does so with two flaws- you get to deploy all your cards at once, and then get to play and replay any of them (you can activate the same unit over and over again if you want in order to get the most out of these combos).
It isn't tactics when you can do this sort of thing, there's not enough limits to operate against.
Rather this is a game for 'deck builders' and rule nitpickers. And not very good ones either as the best options are so easily discovered and used.
Truly one of the worse games I've come across in a long time.
It does have a really nice line of minis that go with it however.
I agree the base mechanic isn't very good, but I think you're giving the base mechanic more importance than it has. As a rough analogue, the base mechanic for Vampire LARP is rock-paper-scissors, yet that mechanic by itself doesn't determine the quality of the LARP. (I personally don't LARP at all by the way.)
A figure may be activated multiple times in a row, but every action also provokes reactions. Acting ten times in a row means getting shot at ten times in a row.
I don't even play Infinity but I think you're being too hard on the game. Invoking MtG is a bit of a strawman argument because to me it seems clear that Infinity doesn't try to be like a CCG, it just wants to be a minis-based wargame.
When you say: "an example of a bad die mechanic", I'll agree with you.
When you say: "it's not a very good game", I think you're not giving it a fair shake. RPGs and wargames don't use quite the same criteria, nor do they assign the same weight to those criteria they do share.
I picked on the base mechanic, because it's so easy to make a good one. Thus it's an excellent example of how much care went into the entire system- and the answer here isn't much.
I have zero interest in comparing skirmish games or RPGs to LARPS. I don't consider LARPS related to RPGs in any sense. You'd think that people might notice that LARP doesn't include a G anywhere in its four letters. But people are clueless.
I can tell that you haven't played the game, nor really examined the rules.
For example, did you know that activating a character can activate entire squads? And they get bonuses for that type of activation? And that they can use indirect fire and thus not be subject to counter-fire? And that you can continue to activate them over and over again until you run out of activations completely for the turn?
That makes you're "you subject to counter-fire" point a pure dream.
And that's to say nothing about the fact that the activated character gets his full burst fire rate (often 3) against only a single die of the defender- making it a rather depressing counter fire even when it can be pulled off.
Didn't know about those issues? Or where you just blowing them off? Either way you shouldn't be defending the game.
And MtG isn't a straw man.
First, these types of games require you to buy the minis to field them in official play. They may not be random, but they are in practical collectable games. Very expensive ones in fact.
Second, the mechanic of combo abilities is the same concept. Unit A depends upon Unit B to gain enhancement C. And does it just by being in play. That's a core MtG design concept.
If you use a mechanic used in other games, you are subject to being called on it. It's that simple.
Post a Comment