Game Design Sins

[AsenRG]

Has the thread touched on mechanics that only exist to patch flaws in other mechanics?

Thinking of CoC 7th editions luck point mechanics. Or its rules for "pushing" the roll. I mean, if the failure rate on skill checks is so high and its breaking too many adventures then maybe just fix the skill system? No? No? You are going to give me another set of points to track instead? Cool. Cool.

But then I'm not persuaded that that's actually the goal of the Luck Points mechanic. It seems to me like it's more about allowing the existence of "you must pass that to go forward" adventure design.
In all my, alas too limited, CoC games, I've seldom felt like the character wasn't competent enough.

OTOH, I agree with the general criticism. I'd just use "touch AC/normal AC/Flat-footed AC" as an example - two additional stats to keep track of, all because the system fails to determine which hits actually connect...

 

[TJS]

For an example of introducing rules that exist only to patch other rules I'd point to the entire Fighter class in Pathfinder 1e.

Advanced Armour Training Option: "Adaptable Training (Ex): The fighter can use his base attack bonus in place of his ranks in one skill of his choice from the following list: Acrobatics, Climb, Disguise, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge (engineering), Profession (soldier), Ride, or Swim." (The "this doesn't make any sense at all but oops we still didn't give Fighters enough skill points" option)

Advanced Weapon Training Option: "Armed Bravery (Ex) The fighter applies his bonus from bravery to Will saving throws. " (the "this has nothing to do with weapon training but oops we didn't fix the fighter's really bad Will saves either" option).

 

[AsenRG]

For an example of introducing rules that exist only to patch other rules I'd point to the entire Fighter class in Pathfinder 1e.

Advanced Armour Training Option: "Adaptable Training (Ex): The fighter can use his base attack bonus in place of his ranks in one skill of his choice from the following list: Acrobatics, Climb, Disguise, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge (engineering), Profession (soldier), Ride, or Swim." (The "this doesn't make any sense at all but oops we still didn't give Fighters enough skill points" option)

Advanced Weapon Training Option: "Armed Bravery (Ex) The fighter applies his bonus from bravery to Will saving throws. " (the "this has nothing to do with weapon training but oops we didn't fix the fighter's really bad Will saves either" option).

...yeah, that too!

 

[DeadBob]

Has the thread touched on mechanics that only exist to patch flaws in other mechanics?

Thinking of CoC 7th editions luck point mechanics. Or its rules for "pushing" the roll. I mean, if the failure rate on skill checks is so high and its breaking too many adventures then maybe just fix the skill system? No? No? You are going to give me another set of points to track instead? Cool. Cool.

That was pretty much exactly how that felt to me as well.

 

[Baulderstone]

I haven't played 7th editions, but games with bennies or luck points, I think the point isn't to patch low success rates. A game like Savage Worlds the success rates seem fine for most circumstances. The point seems more giving players a better chance at crucial moments because that is more cinematic (they are pools you usually draw on when it counts). If you raise the general success rate, the rest of the game would play differently too and that might not be ideal.

They can also help with getting players invested. Having to decide whether to spend a precious Benny or risk damage with a push force players to make a decision about how important this action is to them. A player also will feel a greater sense of loss if they fail even after pushing or spending a Benny. It's a mechanic based around how things feel at the table rather than the system trying to model reality, which is why it won't work for everyone.

I do, however, question why it was needed in CoC 7E. I ran that for years, and whiffiness wasn't an issue for me. I think AsenRG might be right that it is meant as a patch for bad adventure design/gamemastering.

 

[Baragei]

I do find games where a trained boxer somehow becomes less dangerous if given a knife to be ..mildly frustrating.

 

[Baulderstone]

I do find games where a trained boxer somehow becomes less dangerous if given a knife to be ..mildly frustrating.

As someone that has fought a guy with a knife, I think RPGs really undersell them in general.

 

[Fenris-77]

As someone that has fought a guy with a knife, I think RPGs really undersell them in general.

Well, that is true, but that boxer, in my experience, is far more dangerous using his fists than flailing about with a knife he doesn't know how to use. Guys who know how to use knives, on the other hand, is where I'd agree completely that they get undersold.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

As someone that has fought a guy with a knife, I think RPGs really undersell them in general.

I think Unknown Armies is one of the few exceptions. In that, even if you win the combat roll, you will get wounded if fighting a guy with a knife. (The game uses the analogy of fighting someone armed with a permanent marker. You might win the fight, but you're still going to end up with ink marks everywhere)l

 

[AsenRG]

I do find games where a trained boxer somehow becomes less dangerous if given a knife to be ..mildly frustrating.

As someone that has fought a guy with a knife, I think RPGs really undersell them in general.

I agree with both of these statements.
Of course, that's why I'm in favour of 1) skill defaults, 2) damage depending less on how big the blade is, and more on how well it lands and on what place and 3) weapons adding to your attack even if you don't have the skill.

 

[DeadBob]

As far as CoC skills go, I started noodling around with a hack ages ago for earlier editions that worked a bit like the old WEG Star Wars templates.

Basically, skills were grouped and you'd buy a category up to a certain level( say between 20-40%), then advance the individual skills separately after that with other points.

The idea was to have say, a "pulp" scientist with broad science-y skills, but specialized in just a few. Much less need to go looking for a helper NPC when it turns out that this adventure really does benefit from Botany and no one has it. IN that case, someone would have the skill, just at a modest but viable level.

 

[AsenRG]

Well, that is true, but that boxer, in my experience, is far more dangerous using his fists than flailing about with a knife he doesn't know how to use. Guys who know how to use knives, on the other hand, is where I'd agree completely that they get undersold.

Except he needs exactly one 5-minutes lesson to become even more dangerous with the knife. And even I can deliver said lesson, no need to go to Tibet for an enlightened knife-fighting master.

I think Unknown Armies is one of the few exceptions. In that, even if you win the combat roll, you will get wounded if fighting a guy with a knife. (The game uses the analogy of fighting someone armed with a permanent marker. You might win the fight, but you're still going to end up with ink marks everywhere)l

And that's an oversimplification. It works well for UA, because the whole combat system is oversimplified, but otherwise, no, it's not exactly true

 

[Fenris-77]

Except he needs exactly one 5-minutes lesson to become even more dangerous with the knife. And even I can deliver said lesson, no need to go to Tibet for an enlightened knife-fighting master.

Maybe, it depends on the lesson. If it's Folsom Prison Method then yeah, it's not a lot of learning.

 

[Baulderstone]

I think Unknown Armies is one of the few exceptions. In that, even if you win the combat roll, you will get wounded if fighting a guy with a knife. (The game uses the analogy of fighting someone armed with a permanent marker. You might win the fight, but you're still going to end up with ink marks everywhere)l

I used to play in Greg's UA group. I just stopped taking combat skills at all. In that game, fighting is something you get the other chumps at the table to do for you.

 

[AsenRG]

Maybe, it depends on the lesson. If it's Folsom Prison Method then yeah, it's not a lot of learning.

That's the first minute. There's two more blocks of 2 minutes each.

For those of you that aren't sure, guys, Folsom Prison Method is an actual name for a specific kind of knife use...I wouldn't say "fighting".

 

[DeadBob]

Enh, seems like Old Timey D&D gets it right, as long as most people are considered 0 level or 1/2HD, don't wear any armor in normal circumstances, and knives/daggers do 1d4 damage.

 

[PolarBlues]

I used to play in Greg's UA group. I just stopped taking combat skills at all. In that game, fighting is something you get the other chumps at the table to do for you.

So in the last 30 minutes, we've learned that Baulderstone get's into knife fights and is on first name terms with Greg Stolze. That's the sort of qualifications required to be a Mod at the Pub.

I am assuming we aren't talking Greg Kinnear. Nobody would admit roleplaying with Greg Kinnear.

 

[DeadBob]

I don't know that it's a sin, but it is a pet peeve: If you're going to include rules in your RPG that imply miniatures use, or suggest it heavily, actually sit down and consider deeply all of the implications of that beyond merely tactical movement and positioning.

Half-assed miniatures rules that aren't great for either the No Minis Ever folks mor the All-Minis, All the Time folks are far too common.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't know that it's a sin, but it is a pet peeve: If you're going to include rules in your RPG that imply miniatures use, or suggest it heavily, actually sit down and consider deeply all of the implications of that beyond merely tactical movement and positioning.

Half-assed miniatures rules that aren't great for either the No Minis Ever folks mor the All-Minis, All the Time folks are far too common.

For me the key item there is the grid/no grid decision. Miniatures for relative position on sketched maps is one thing, but once you add the grid it changes a whole bunch of assumptions about how the game looks at the table.

 

[DeadBob]

For me the key item there is the grid/no grid decision. Miniatures for relative position on sketched maps is one thing, but once you add the grid it changes a whole bunch of assumptions about how the game looks at the table.

That is for sure part of it, but I also mean things like not really thinking about how much room the usual RPG group has to work with, what it means in terms of handling time to carry and move stuff and to change in-fiction locations, and really incredibly practical questions about budgeting real world dollars (which gets into issues of size of the bestiary and re-appearance/re-use of models).

I should probably spin this off if folks are interested. Specifically, I'm interested in the questions that need to be answered for the folks who want to use miniatures (and not merely markers). I think someone else would be better qualified to talk about positives for No Minis Ever designs (which can be good in their own right, but also seem a bit under explored, IMO).

 

[Torque2100]

Meta-currency... for GMs.

Look, a GM's role is very complex. Fun! But very detailed and demanding.

To create a game system in which the GM has to "earn" permission to do their job... I think that's just plain awful now.

I get that people seem to love this in games like Fate Core. And I don't mind it if certain special dice rolls by PLAYERS generate their own narrative triggers (e.g. critical success or failure, complications on success, boons on failure etc...) but having a game shackle the GM's freedom to be creative...

Thanks, I hate it. And I hate that our current community makes modern game designers and players feel that the necessity to implement this trust system.

Late to the party, but this. SO MUCH THIS.

As a forever DM, I hate this trend in modern game design. I hate this trend. I hate hate HATE HATE HATE HAAAAATE. This trend in modern RPG design. My job as Game Master is hard enough already. I have to write backstories, come up with motivations, design and balance encounters. Having to earn the right to do my job and having the game hamstring my creativity is just insulting and disrespectful.

 

[Dammit Victor]

For an example of introducing rules that exist only to patch other rules I'd point to the entire Fighter class in Pathfinder 1e.

Judging by my track record on Paizo and ENW, this is a controversial opinion, but: look at all of the Feats and Prestige Classes WotC had to come up with to "fix" multiclassing in 3.X. Before abandoning it entirely (4e) and then putting it back as it was originally published (5e).

 

[Brock Savage]

That is for sure part of it, but I also mean things like not really thinking about how much room the usual RPG group has to work with, what it means in terms of handling time to carry and move stuff and to change in-fiction locations, and really incredibly practical questions about budgeting real world dollars (which gets into issues of size of the bestiary and re-appearance/re-use of models).

I should probably spin this off if folks are interested. Specifically, I'm interested in the questions that need to be answered for the folks who want to use miniatures (and not merely markers). I think someone else would be better qualified to talk about positives for No Minis Ever designs (which can be good in their own right, but also seem a bit under explored, IMO).

The decision to grid or not grid is typically based on preference and time, not space or money. I ran grid games on the cheap while living with roommates/limited space for years. A typical RPG group has access to a table and free cardstock miniatures can be printed en masse for next to nothing. Dry erase pens and boards are sold at dollar stores. The biggest expense, a Chessex battlemat or Paizo flip mat is around 20 bucks.

 

[Baulderstone]

There are two basic ways to use minis in an RPG. There is the loose positioning method where the GM just plunks them down on the table to show where things are. This usually shortens gameplay, as the GM spends less time on description and you aren't adding any additional rule complexity.

One the other end, you have games like D&D 3E where the minis are baked right into the mechanics of the game. The additional complexity of the rules is probably going to slow down play more than the obvious positioning will speed it up. That's not automatically a bad thing. It just means that the miniature combat has to be satisfying enough to worth the extra time it takes.

If you are designing this kind of game, the combat has to be a satisfying tactical game on its own, one that can be repeated over and over again. In my opinion, D&D 3E failed in this regard. The minis and the grid were fun for a while, but once we got tired of the "game" of combat, we were sick of the whole system.

 

[DeadBob]

The decision to grid or not grid is typically based on preference and time, not space or money. I ran grid games on the cheap while living with roommates/limited space for years. A typical RPG group has access to a table and free cardstock miniatures can be printed en masse for next to nothing. Dry erase pens and boards are sold at dollar stores. The biggest expense, a Chessex battlemat or Paizo flip mat is around 20 bucks.

I was actually talking about minis.

I know that often gets confusing in RPG circles, but miniatures hobbyists are actually quite aware of the existence of less expensive options for positional markers.

They're voluntarily choosing to go the miniatures route. That's what I mean about at least some of the deeper thought issues.

 

[Baulderstone]

The decision to grid or not grid is typically based on preference and time, not space or money. I ran grid games on the cheap while living with roommates/limited space for years. A typical RPG group has access to a table and free cardstock miniatures can be printed en masse for next to nothing. Dry erase pens and boards are sold at dollar stores. The biggest expense, a Chessex battlemat or Paizo flip mat is around 20 bucks.

The most mini-intensive years of my GMing life where when I was running D&D 3E followed by Savage Worlds. I was dirt poor during that time as well, and I got by just fine. Early in the 3E run, that White Wolf division that did D20 stuff put out a cardstock book of counters from everything in the Monster Manual. One of the women in my group worked at a novelty shop, so she would regularly add things like cheap plastic ninjas and skeletons to the cause. And glass stones always worked in a pinch.

 

[Brock Savage]

I was actually talking about minis.

I know that often gets confusing in RPG circles, but miniatures hobbyists are actually quite aware of the existence of less expensive options for positional markers.

They're voluntarily choosing to go the miniatures route. That's what I mean about at least some of the deeper thought issues.

What are some of these deeper thought issues? I have thousands of dollars invested in minis so this is of interest to me.

 

[Simlasa]

Something like Rackham's Cadwallon, born from a miniatures skirmish game, has a strong focus on miniatures... to the point that I'm not sure how well it plays without them. As much as I like miniatures and the original skirmish game, I don't want that degree of focus on combat in the RPG... the time it takes... so it becomes an issue.

 

[ffilz]

I do find games where a trained boxer somehow becomes less dangerous if given a knife to be ..mildly frustrating.

Cold Iron has an interesting bit here... Though it would more pertain to wrestlers given a knife...

In Cold Iron's "wrestling" sub-system (called Hand to Hand Combat in the game) the only impact of having a knife rather than bare fists is you get better damage. The skill you have with the knife is (mostly) not relevant (other than if your knife skill is high enough you get more damage with your knife in hand to hand combat). The system also doesn't force you to use that knife damage, you can still punch. And if you're big enough, wielding a knife changes your punch damage from fatigue (subdual) to regular (killing) damage (so that actually applies to boxing - arm the giant boxer with a knife and his punch is now killing damage not subdual).

Hmm, an interesting point, I don't know if anyone in the human size/strength range could have a one-handed weapon that does less damage than their fist damage. There may be situations where a character's knife/dagger damage is less than their unarmed combat damage, so the rule about substituting unarmed combat damage could apply to humans.

The key here is that Cold Iron has "oops, that doesn't make sense" override rules.

 

[AsenRG]

Hmm, an interesting point, I don't know if anyone in the human size/strength range could have a one-handed weapon that does less damage than their fist damage.

..if he could, that wouldn't count as much of an weapon, would it?

 

[ffilz]

That is for sure part of it, but I also mean things like not really thinking about how much room the usual RPG group has to work with, what it means in terms of handling time to carry and move stuff and to change in-fiction locations, and really incredibly practical questions about budgeting real world dollars (which gets into issues of size of the bestiary and re-appearance/re-use of models).

I should probably spin this off if folks are interested. Specifically, I'm interested in the questions that need to be answered for the folks who want to use miniatures (and not merely markers). I think someone else would be better qualified to talk about positives for No Minis Ever designs (which can be good in their own right, but also seem a bit under explored, IMO).

There was a period in my early gaming when I loaded up 50 lbs of miniatures and AD&D books, walked a mile or so to the bus stop, changed to a 2nd bus route at a bus station, then changed to subway in Harvard Square (with a possible several block side excursion to The Games People Play) and then several blocks from the Kendall station to MIT. Later I started driving, then I just had to walk about 1/2 the distance from parking to MIT... And yea, collecting miniatures for the bestiary was a pain.

In college I eventually switched to tokens, though for some games I still used miniatures for PCs. But even then, you still have the hassle of finding appropriate miniatures.

I've switched between tokens and miniatures on and off until I switched to Roll20 for gaming, where I use tokens.

What other considerations though do you feel get ignored?

It's also worth noting that ALL the gaming I did with miniatures, they were basically tokens, so getting a miniature that was close to a monster was OK.

I also had one adventure I ran at home during high school where I set up a table and put almost all of my monster miniatures on the table and then ran a big fight with the PCs (they eventually cleared the table, and after figuring experience, I allowed them to gain 2 levels... It seemed unfair after all that effort to allow them only a single level...).

 

[TristramEvans]

Something like Rackham's Cadwallon, born from a miniatures skirmish game, has a strong focus on miniatures... to the point that I'm not sure how well it plays without them.

I have no idea how well it plays with them, because the translation on that RPG remains the worst I ever encountered in the hobby, and I'm not convinced tha game was ever even playable

 

[lategamer]

..if he could, that wouldn't count as much of an weapon, would it?

I guess there is a skill aspect to it. I mean, I've seen some pretty terrible strikes with a bat over the years where I can't believe it could have been weaker.

 

[ffilz]

I have no idea how well it plays with them, because the translation on that RPG remains the worst I ever encountered in the hobby, and I'm not convinced tha game was ever even playable

I always wondered about Cadwallon. I bought two sets of the geomorphic map boards and always wondered what I was missing out by not buying the game. I have yet to manage to make much use of the map boards. I think I broke some out for an encounter when I was running Ptolus with Arcana Evolved.

 

[TristramEvans]

I always wondered about Cadwallon. I bought two sets of the geomorphic map boards and always wondered what I was missing out by not buying the game. I have yet to manage to make much use of the map boards. I think I broke some out for an encounter when I was running Ptolus with Arcana Evolved.

Visually, it is lush, maybe one of the most beautiful RPG books ever produced in English, an I love the background.

The system even seems quite innovative (instead of standard stats you had "attitudes" and your dominant attitude or approach modifies how you accomplish tasks).

But yeah, I think I've owned tha book for 20 years and still cannot make heads nor tails of it

 

[Sharrow]

For an example of introducing rules that exist only to patch other rules I'd point to the entire Fighter class in Pathfinder 1e.

Advanced Armour Training Option: "Adaptable Training (Ex): The fighter can use his base attack bonus in place of his ranks in one skill of his choice from the following list: Acrobatics, Climb, Disguise, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge (engineering), Profession (soldier), Ride, or Swim." (The "this doesn't make any sense at all but oops we still didn't give Fighters enough skill points" option)

Advanced Weapon Training Option: "Armed Bravery (Ex) The fighter applies his bonus from bravery to Will saving throws. " (the "this has nothing to do with weapon training but oops we didn't fix the fighter's really bad Will saves either" option).

Ah, but this way it's the player's fault that their fighter sucked at X skill or Will saves, not the game's. The player choose not to have a good save.[/sarcasm]

Actually they're either dead choices (the GM never asks for those skill rolls or that save) or mandatory and thus a tax for playing a fighter (not usually a class that needs taxing).

 

[Fenris-77]

So here's a small example of shit that gives me the pip, in this case an example from a game I actually love, Spelljammer. This particular issue plagues a lot of games that have ship rules, spacefaring or otherwise. My issue here is with the notion of tonnage, particularly cargo space related to tonnage. So in Spelljammer a ship will have about half its tonnage available for cargo space, so a 30 ton ship has 15 tons of cargo space. So far so good. Here's where things fall apart for me though. Each 'ton' of cargo space is described as 50 cubic yards of cargo space. My problem here is that measurement means almost nothing to most people. Even people who suffer under the lash of Imperial measurements probably don't think in cubic yards. How many barrels of dwarven ale can I fit into 10 tons of cargo space? you ask. To which I reply, fucked if I know, let me get out my slide rule. Never mind the fact that no one knows how big a barrel of dwarven ale is in the first place because in no case will it be described in a way that's useful for determining cargo space. It's simply not terribly useful as a basic mechanic or description.

The 50 cubic yards thing struggles a little even if you want to do the math. The easy part is that a yard is 3 feet, so a cubic yard is a 3'x 3' cube. Cool. So a normal crate might reasonably be one of those and a large crate maybe two. How about those barrels of ale though? Well, maybe it's one each, IDK? Close enough I suppose. How about a crate of pikes? Arrgh. How about a big sack of tiddly winks? Double arrgh. How about a cargo of ornate giraffe statues crafted by artisanal Gnomish carvers on Phlogiston IV? Jesus wept. Don't get me wrong, I can do the math and 3D whatsits, but I don't want to have to, especially not at the table. Just gimme a cargo rating based on a range of easily conceptualized exemplars and call it a day.

 

[Sharrow]

One useful measure (not used in Spelljammer, more's the pity) is the old rule used for cargo ships. They had a 'ton' that was volumetric rather than weight based - one ton was 100 cubic feet. Now, that might not seem very useful, but this happened to be about the volume required for a ton (weight) of generic loose cargo.

Thus, if you use this measure unless something is particularly low or high density you can just use the total weight and not worry about volume vs weight, and if you've no clue as to weight but have some vague idea of how big the thing is, eyeball the volume in cubic feet and divide by a hundred and add a bit more for waste space and call it a day. I find this a very useful rule of thumb.

By the way, bulk water and similar liquids get heavy fast. A ton (or tonne) weight of water is about 35 cubic feet (a bit more if contained in a barrel, etc.) - you can probably fit more into your cargo hold than your ship can carry and still float (assuming a conventional water vessel).

 

[Fenris-77]

The SJ equivalent has a ton set at 450 cubic feet. 'Nuff said.

 

[DeadBob]

What are some of these deeper thought issues? I have thousands of dollars invested in minis so this is of interest to me.

I do as well.

Let's see, offhand...

1) What is the buying plan for miniatures?
Who buys them? Which ones? How many do they buy? What's the best to do expand that?

In general, most minis games (as opposed to RPGs) have some thought put into those issues, if only in the form of Points Value systems, that every player then uses.

How does this translate into another type of game where traditionally the GM plays the world and everyone/everything except the PCs?

This has real world budget implications.

Those real-world budget implications then tie back into substitution/re-use/reskinning issues, which may then play into fictional/setting creation issues. Of course, the ties can go in the other direction as well.

For example, if I somehow take a whole bunch of D&Dish humanoid and demi-human fantasy races and say, for the fiction of the setting, they're all Fae collectively, and they can be allied to or opposed to humans in the setting (and differences in attitude are largely between families and tribes, not species of demi/humanoids), I've just given an in-setting fictional reason for why I re-use all the elves/dwarves/kobolds/whatever together in whatever fashion I feel like, rather than collecting a dozen or so of each variety.

On the flip, I could create a more generic baddie race or two, and encourage a culture of re-skinning that to whatever you have in your game. That's a big part of the culture that surrounds the Joseph McCullough *Grave miniatures skirmish games. If his baddies are Gnolls, but you use orcs and call them such? More power to you. Or bandits. Or Sleestaks.

2) How Big is the bestiary and how often do I expect different critters to come up in play?

Related to this, do I need more of certain critters because of a curve in PC power over time.
I like to think of this as the How Many Owlbears Do I Need? Conundrum.

How many owlbears do I need?
(By my estimation, somewhere between 0 and 7, but that's just me.)

How many dragons? Whatever.

Thing is, you can have a big bestiary. How do you make it manageable over the course of play? How do you keep a smallish, limited collection fun while expanding it.

3) How much play space do we have?
My experience is that, in RPGs, there is very little unused space on which to set up, so rules need to be written in some fashion to either increase the space (by using less reference materials perhaps to regain table space) or making the best use of a small amount of space. That will then impact all kinds of design thinking as well, especially movement and ranged combat rules.

4) How often do we expect to change locations?
It has a big impact on your choice of terrain.

RPGs tend to change location a whole lot, so do you modify the RPG expectations? I mean, that's one answer. On any given game night, the table is set out wargame style and all of the action takes place there. Maybe there are multiple small locations on the table not physically adjacent in the fiction, becoming multiple small boards (now we're back to the need for interesting small table space rules). This could work with very traditional 3d wargame style terrain.

Okay, maybe we still want a fair amount, but not unlimited location change in any given session. 2d Printed boards/tiles perhaps with some spot terrain are possibly desirable. That allows you easy in, easy out with only really moving character/opposition miniatures, especially if you have them preprinted on something the size of posterboard/foam core presentation sheets. A whole lot faster than using smaller individual tiles or any but the most basic sorts of dry erase drawings. Once again, small space rules become desirable.

It also becomes desirable to start thinking about a library of these (just like the miniatures collection of the group as a whole, and the bestiary, and...) and their re-usability. How does that fit in with playstyle? Are we looking at something where there are recurring locations, with later additions for flavor, like a game centered on a town/castle/county/starship/space station/Casablanca, and only an occasional off-site to spice things up?

5) How many times does that guy come back and why???
We all know, even with lots of minis in a collection, somebody (miniature) is going to get re-used and substituted along the way. Howabout fiction that justifies it?

I mean, no one really has to justify why random baddie trooper #3 with the sword and SMG gets re-used. They come from central castling. And no one really needs to justify why a really common non-human threat gets re-used (there's just lots of gators, wolves, and bears in these here parts). But it's bit different when it comes to a dragon, vampire noble, or beholder or whatever.

Is this mechanically a game where lots of characters go Combat Ineffective for the encounter, but rarely die or carry long term effects? That's certainly common in skirmish campaign minis games, and with generally a very simple post-battle roll system. Some RPGs use it, but not a lot.

Do baddies regularly have Comic Books Villain survivability somehow? Sure, the volcano fell on them, but later one, they're just back.

Is this a setting where lots of combat occurs, but rarely to the death (at least among certain people). Are there rules of ransoming or capture and parole? Are there required promises that must be made, recognized, and kept under some sort of penalty? Is there some high tech/magics that ted to almost always prevent death? Do people just plain have multiple lives?


And all that is just off the top of my head. There's plenty more if I guzzle another pot of coffee or so.

That all goes way beyond This is how the little dudes move, this is how they shoot .