The mechanics of miniature games

     So I have been struggling to create a unique game mechanic for my game. It seems to me that everything has pretty much been done. The best mechanics are used in multiple games and sometimes they are disguised as something "new" when they are really not. So lets look at some of the options out there. I will call them the one die roll, two dice rolls and three dice rolls systems. For the record cards can be used in place of dice to generate random numbers but the mechanic is basically the same.

One die roll system

     One die roll systems are typically found in board games. They involve one all encompassing attack statistic vs an all encompassing defense statistic. Or perhaps one attack roll vs a set difficulty or target number. These types of games can be played fast and are very easy for everyone to learn. The downside is trying to add layers of complexity to something so simple can be impossible without adding attachments to every rule. And no one wants to spend all of their gaming time looking up rules in books. I was originally going to try and make the one die roll system work with my game. Every time I look into mechanics I drift farther from it as there is just no way to easily account for a number of things: weapon types is a big one, the guy who hits hard but can't hit very well opposed to the guy who hits all the time but does little damage.

Example

     Lets look at this example a bit closer. We have soldier A who is a highly skilled scrapper, he can hit you no matter how hard you try to dodge out of the way, but he uses a knife. So when he does get you it does little damage. Now we have soldier B who is a muscle-bound behemoth of a man, swinging a great two-handed sword. He swings wildly and it's easy to avoid, but if you get hit by it you are probably going to die. Now in order to assign these soldiers an attack value you have to consider how much skill they have and how much damage they can do. Even though they are drastically different soldiers, I am thinking their attack values might be pretty close to the same. This is the biggest problem with the one die roll system. Another example for future reference is on the defensive side of things. Soldier A is very agile and quick, but wears no armor. Soldier B is slow and flat footed but has heavy armor on. Are their defense values going to be the same as well?

Two dice rolls system

     This brings us the the two dice rolls system. In my opinion the best system. The two rolls involved are 1. A check to see if you hit your opponent. 2. A check to see if you damage your opponent. Step 2 usually also determines how much or to what extent damage is done. It's pretty simple like the one die roll system but still allows a wealth of complexity without adding attachments to the rules. In the above example with soldier A and B we now have defined roles for these troops. Soldier A will try to hit other soldier As. He does this because soldier B has no real chance to hit them. He doesn't go after soldier Bs because even though he can hit them reliably, he just can't do much to actually hurt them. Much better than giving everyone essentially the same statistics.

Three dice rolls system

     Finally the three dice rolls system. This system is essentially the two dice rolls system with an added (usually unnecessary in my opinion) step. After a hit and damage have been determined the defending player would get a chance to "save" his soldier. This is done by trying to reach a target number with a dice roll. I call it unnecessary because if I had rolled to damage your soldier why would you then roll to see if I didn't actually damage him? We just determined that, now we are going to check again? It's just repetitive to me. Of course there are some games out there that follow this system but roll in a different order, say make your hit, roll the save, then roll to damage. The only real benefit I can see in this added step is giving your opponent a chance to roll some dice "in defense".

Opposed vs non-opposed

     

     Watching your men die during your opponents turn, while not being able to do anything about it, can be a little dull sometimes.  But having to roll constantly during your turn and your opponents turn can get tiresome. Opposed dice rolls involve both players to make a roll to determine an outcome. Like the board game RISK, or the card game WAR. Both players roll or flip a card and whoever has the highest score wins. Applied to a miniature game, you would roll and add your attack vs the enemy rolling and adding his defense for instance. The same could then be done for damage and armor. The three dice rolls system implements one die roll that usually gets rolled by your opponent, thus involving him in the turn and creating an "almost" opposed roll. Non-opposed roll systems involve one player making all the rolls during his turn and the opponent just has to watch and deal with the outcome. I think both of these systems have some merits and of course some flaws. 

     Opposed rolls involve both players during a turn. This keeps both players from getting too distracted and you actually feel like you are fighting it out. The best way to implement this in my opinion is if you had some further choice in what to do. Defense wise, if I had the option to block, dodge or parry. And my roll or defensive statistics were different depending on what I chose, it would make the defending player just as involved as the attacker. And you wouldn't just be going through the motions either, you would be making choices. The downsides to this are competitive aspects of a game, and flow of a game. When you are playing on a chess clock or timed event, you will be relying on your opponent to move at the same pace as yourself. This can be a real drag for a lot of seasoned players. Another downside, if you don't have choices to make in defense then you might be just rolling to see who rolls the highest, which can be done more efficiently by having only the attacker trying to hit a target number. And speaking of efficiency, less people rolling dice makes for a smoother and faster gameplay.

Unconventional systems

     Non dice systems are essentially the same as dice systems. They just use some other form of generating a random number. Most commonly cards are used as you can have a number system and some face cards to represent special situations. Another unconventional system is to use different sided dice, four sided for rookies, six for normal soldiers and eight sided dice for veterans as example. While this may be pretty cool it requires all of your players to have to buy dice sets that they probably don't have. Strangely enough that is a turn off for me, but other "extra" purchases are, for some reason, not turn offs. 

So what am I going to do?

   

  So what am I going to do? I don't know really. I want something that flows well, involves both players and doesn't copy any other system. That's a tall order I know. I'm leaning towards staying clear of gimmick type systems too, but in the end the possibility is still open. Not sure weather opposed type rolls with tactical options will be good, but so far the more I think about it I like it. It allows for both players to be involved, and if enough choices are added then the outcome wont be so set in stone. For instance; I think Warmachine by Privateer Press has the best mechanics. The problem I see with their attack and damage (two dice rolls system) is that you know by an exact percentage what your success will be. So if you wanted to add more variables to it you could do this: Instead of a target number for defense, lower all defense values by 7 (the average on two dice)  and make the attack vs defense part of the game an opposed roll. Now you don't know the exact percentage of success. But it does slow things down a bit and become a "who can roll higher" contest. So what can be done to flavor this process? Add a few attack and defense options? Maybe some sort of rock, paper, scissors options for both attack and defense with the opposed roll. Think about it. The attacker will declare a "powerful swing" maybe it has a lower chance to hit but does more damage if it connects. The defender can declare "block, dodge or parry" type defensive options. Maybe blocking lowers your ability to avoid an attack but increases your ability to absorb the damage from it. Or dodging makes you harder to hit but if you do get hit you take more damage since you are not trying to absorb or deflect the blow. Perhaps an initiative value will determine who has to declare their intent first. Or maybe there will be some reference cards that you can play face down and flip over simultaneously. The more permutations to this mechanic the less I feel like I am copying someone. But all good miniature games require some sort of hit then damage rolling, meaning that you will be copying someone somewhere down the road maybe even without knowing it. I guess that's why mechanics are non-copyrightable.

Conclusion?

     Well that is all I am going to rant about today. I'm still not really set on any particular mechanics for my game. Hopefully writing this stuff down will help me sort my thoughts and find something that I want to use. Anyway, until next time.