This past week has been spent converting the D3 War of the Spanish Succession (WSS) rules I use to ones which don't use dice. They used D3 dice (1,1,2,2,3,3) for most combat situations delivering below average, average, and above average outcomes. The aim of updating the rules is to reduce the possible combat outcomes to mostly two using a deck of cards and results based on drawing the red or black suits.
 |
| A game in progress using a cards only approach |
What prompted this madness to rework the rules not to use dice?
Every now and again I flick through some of old wargaming books that I have. Last week came across a chapter called "Doing Without Dice" in the book "Advanced War Games" (by Donald Featherstone) which asks the question about having fewer dice and less chance in games. The general idea is that wargamers welcome an element of chance, or luck, but that good strategy and tactics should be rewarded more so than good luck. It is an interesting and short chapter of 5-6 pages which looks at various options of restricting the range of results, and chance, and having more expected results. The variety of approaches mentioned include home made percentage cards, playing cards, and even dominoes.
 |
| French units take up defensive positions |
The chapter also reminded me of the book "Rules for Wargaming" by Arthur Taylor, published way back in 1971, where chance had been removed as much as possible from the rules.
The result of this reading eventuated with the reworking of the rules, now called WSS Cards for want of a better title, and they can be found in the above tabs or by just clicking here.
 |
| Allied units arrive |
An element of luck is welcome but for my tastes, the random component should not be the tail that was the dog. If tactics and sound play are not rewarded, why play?
ReplyDeleteIt is a tricky balance between creating uncertainty and making things unduly random. As a solo wargamer I find the element of luck useful to enjoying a game, but it needs to be spread evenly across the various rule mechanisms.
DeleteVery interesting concept. Will be keen to see how this plays out for the period.
ReplyDeleteThe tabletop is set up for another game.
DeleteElegantly simple. Lovely looking flats too.
ReplyDeleteThank you. The flats are the paper soldiers by Peter Dennis. When I print them I increase the size to make it easier to cut out and see the wonderful details. The foot figures stand at 42mm tall.
DeleteLooks VERY interesting. Been playing around with card mechanics in my head after a few games of One Hour Skirmish Wargames. He has some musings in the intro on different ways you could use cards, I will be checking your rules out. Paper figures look great BTW.
ReplyDeleteI too so like OHSW, they are my go to skirmish gaming rules. The paper soldiers are surprising effective they have been increased in size to 42mm figures when printed.
DeleteAt the risk of sounding like I am merely here to plug my own work, my latest project, "Spartans and Successors" is a card driven diceless system. That plays on a grid. They're only a fiver, over on Amazon.
ReplyDeleteThanks, cards can create some interesting rule mechanisms.
DeleteAn interesting change to the rules but I'm not sure it reduces the chance element by much. Your comments have prompted me to look at the ECW rules in my Arthur Taylor book (my first ever purchase of wargame rules back in the mid-70s if memory serves.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting book of rules by Arthur Taylor. I was able to get a copy a couple of years ago. The rule changes while not eliminating chance do instead reduce the range of combat outcomes.
DeleteYou were lucky to find a copy mine is really a collection of loose pages rather a book any more.
DeleteThere was a game years ago that didn't use dice or any chance mechanisms called the Complete Brigadier.
ReplyDeletehttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12630/complete-brigadier
Thanks for the link I will investigate.
DeleteI swooned a bit on seeing the Arthur Taylor book .... one of my first influences :-)
ReplyDeleteI like dice, or rather randomness, as I feel they are part of the narrative and help tell the story without excessive rules overhead. They explain why today that unit did not do as well as expected or in fact did exactly what the commander two levels up wanted them to do.
But, I do like 'tame' dice. I am not keen on D10 as the swings of variables can be too great for a single situation, but I do like Average Dice .... I suppose for the opposite reasons really.
All good and very interesting.
It is a fine balance between creating that story (level of unpredictability) and making the results too swingy. As a solo wargamer in the main, having a level of unpredictability makes games interesting. With these home-brew rules chance, while being limited, has been spread across both combat and activation mechanisms.
DeleteI tend to prefer a somewhat higher chance factor for several reasons. First, with too low a chance factor, things become dull and predictable. Second, very competitive players will get very testy about small distances, angles, and the like (although a grid can solve much of that). The higher chance factor allows the game to tell more of a story, I often find.
ReplyDeleteFor some periods I certainly do like greater variation of outcomes, as you say it helps with an exciting game story. For this period I felt more comfortable with reducing the range of combat outcomes. Although with reducing the range on the combat mechanisms, they have been partially incorporated into the sequence of play. For example, getting to shoot before the opposition may be sufficient to rout them before they fire. In some ways the chance factor is spread thinly across both move and combat mechanisms.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff Peter, as ever.
ReplyDeleteI'm on a bit of a reducing the imponderable thing at the moment, at least in theory. My thinking is driven by annoyance at what seems to be a trend (lazy in my view) in 'modern' rules to use loads of dice, for every aspect, to emphasise the game and 'fun' of it all. Going back to Kriegsspiel 1824 has me thinking about where I want uncertainty and 'luck'; the casualties produced by black powder weapons, for example. Other things can be fixed, or at least adjusted by given factors only. Given that I plan to only inflict my ideas on myself, 'no-one will be hurt in the making of these rules'!
Regards, James
It is an interesting conundrum to decide where to apply luck or chance in the rules. Good luck with your rule adjustments.
Delete