Hope you are all happy and comfortable

No news today, just a belated "hope you had a good Thanksgiving if you celebrate and a good week if you do not" :)

I appreciate all of you and look forward to sharing amazing gaming experiences in the future.

Ludwig (left) and Lancelot (right) look forward to it too.

Repost. What happened to....

A few old games or beta versions that are not currently available:

Fast And Dirty (FAD)

(Scifi platoon level)

Sold off the rights. If you search for the rules online you can find the website operated by the current owner, which includes a number of additions of their own making.

I would like to revisit some concepts in future games but it is unlikely a new FAD will be created.

Trench Storm

(WW1 battalion level)

Sold off the rights though I don't know if anything came of that project. As the scale mostly overlaps with Trench Hammer, unlikely to get a revisit though future WW1 games will happen.

Blast Pistol / Last Era etc.

(Scifi and fantasy skirmish)

The niche of "minimalist wargame rules" is better covered by Squad Hammer these days. Unlikely to return.

An Orc too far test

(Fantasy version of Scum of the Earth)

Shelved indefinitely until I can find time to update Scum itself.

Acrid smell of powder test

(Black powder skirmish)

Turned out to be a bit too weird and awkward. Musket to Rifle will cover the same ground.

Did I miss any old titles? Let me know in the comments.

1 response

Repost. Titles that never were.

A few game titles that never did end up happening, but which almost did. Or did.

Star Strike

When I was working on Clash on the Fringe, my wife and I came up with a list of 50ish names and ended up picking this one, only to realize that it was actually the name of an RPG supplement (for SpaceMaster I believe).

Only the Dead

Working title for the very first draft of what became No End in Sight. It was a reference to the quote that "only the dead have seen the end of war". I ended up changing it because it made it sound like a zombie game.

Afghan Soda Can

A little experiment in modern day squad combat, heavily inspired by some video game I played. I don't think it was ever particularly playable and I don't think a copy survives.

Laserstorm

This one got published but the original draft was actually intended for squads of single-based 15mm figures instead of 6mm team stands.

Dungeonhack

A dungeon duel game with a bunch of different character classes that all had different abilities. At the time, I realized I did not want to write a competitive game and it got shelved.

Monsterslayer

A solo fantasy game inspired by the Demons Souls video game. It was kind of a repetitive grind but probably influenced some of what would become Five Leagues later on.

Playing and reading a variety of games

In order to understand games you need to play and read games of course and preferably as many as possible.

Game design is like any other skill: It needs to be honed and practiced and that can happen both by exercising it (make games) and by studying what the field looks like today and in the past.

I've talked a lot about writing games in the past and will continue doing so in the future, so let's talk about the second part:

Now, if you fancy yourself a designer you probably already buy a lot of game rules to read. However, if you are doing it to learn avoid the mistake of only reading games you are already interested in. Spread out and investigate genres, historical periods or concepts you would not normally play. Into hardcore fantasy simulation RPGs? Pick up a copy of Troubleshooters or Tails of Equestria. Platoon level WW2 gamer? Go have a look at what the Napoleonic guys are a doing and so forth.

Heck read games from across formats altogether: Whether they are RPGs, miniatures games, card games or board games. Though this can of course be a bit expensive and I don't blame anyone for sticking to one thing.

All game rules are basically answers to problems and you may be surprised at some of the problems you never even anticipated. You may also realize that many concepts are pretty universal: All miniatures games have some sort of movement system for example.

It is also enlightening to study what problems a game does NOT solve or omits altogether. If a game does not include a points system, how do you set up a battle? If a game has no morale rules, how does that affect gameplay?

Of course many subtleties are not evident just from a read-through of the game rules and you should endeavor to play new games as well. Obviously this is easier with games that you already have figures for. If you already play Chain of Command, picking up Rules of Engagement just requires figuring out the book, though more mercenary gamers may feel no reluctance in proxying figures for a test game. You can even test the same scenario multiple times and see what comes out of it (as a friend on Discord did for science fiction rules).

If you cannot find the time to do a full-blown battle of a game (especially some of the more involved ones) try setting up a simple fire fight or encounter. For example one unit occupies a hill and two units are just outside charge range and then simply play it out to see what happens. You can still gain a lot of insights from this sort of snapshot experience, even if it does not tell you the full picture of how every piece interacts.

Game update: Renegade Scout and Hammer of Democracy

Renegade Scout is updated to version 2.06

This slightly rewords a few things in the close combat chapter based on feedback.

The table of contents have been redone and should be clickable now.

Finally mounted weapons are now automatically slow.

The updated file should be in your Wargame Vault library momentarily.

Hammer of Democracy is updated to version 0.93.

This also updates the table of contents and makes a couple tiny facelifts. This is mostly in preparation for future updates.

Musket to Rifle / Height of Reason playtest

A playtest version of the Musket to Rifle system (currently titled Height of Reason) is available if you email me at nordicweaselgames@icloud.com

The test version only includes two scenarios and is missing various other components but it is a fully playable game with a variety of infantry and cavalry units to pick from. It currently covers the smoothbore era of warfare so up through circa 1840ish.

Drop me a line if you are interested in helping proof read or playtest.

The Game Funnel. Repost.

Today a straight repost from the old blog, but I think you will enjoy this one.

I thought I'd talk a bit today about the process I tend to use for ideas getting whittled down.

Step 0 is I have an idea in my head.
We all have those. Depending on caffeine intake, we sometimes have a lot.
Get three gamers together and get them talking and you will have 7 game pitches half an hour later.

This stage tends to deal in broad concepts and open-ended ideas.

For example:
"A robot skirmish game where your robot might malfunction and do random things!"

90% of the ideas from Step 0 never go anywhere. At this stage we're just dreaming and dreaming is easy (and fun!)

Why does an idea fail to progress from here? Usually once you think about it a bit, there's either an existing game that already does it well enough or the idea, after a bit of time to think about it, doesn't have enough legs to stand on.

I've said before that a good game is usually a workhorse system with 1 cool idea. But if the idea isn't cool enough, then it's just one more set of rules in a world that definitely doesn't have a shortage of game rules.

Step 1 is the notebook stage.
At this stage we start writing things down. This isn't writing a full game (usually).
For me, it's a mixture of writing out concepts ("Robot Morality!"), a list of desired content ("20 robot morality modules") and fragments of rules written out.

Churn out 2-4 pages of hand-written notes at this stage. You could be a modern person and use a computer but I sometimes tend to "think better" with pencil and paper.

80-90% of the ideas that make this stage never progress beyond it.
Trying to actually put an idea down on paper has a brutal tendency to reveal that it's all gibberish.
Maybe the mechanics you write out just aren't that great and the "right" dice roll or engine keeps eluding you.
Maybe the passion just runs out at this stage.

Step 2 is the draft stage.
Turn to your computer (or a bigger, nicer notepad I guess?) and start writing an actual, playable game.
At this stage, you are writing actual rules, translating the ideas from step 1 and your head into something a group could sit down and play.

Include the basic concepts needed to play: This version needs to account for common, obvious questions ("What happens if I shoot at a tank?") but it can (and should) leave out a lot of the chrome. Campaign rules, your D1000 table for Situational Robot Morality Quirks, the rules for off-map artillery fire, that stuff can all be left to the side.

What you are hoping to end up with is a set of rules that are playable, at least with your own group. Page count will mainly depend on how complex your project is. I'd say 20-30 pages is a good middle ground for a typical game but don't sweat it exactly.

Once you are at this stage? The failure rate will depend primarily on experience.
You see, at this point you have what a lot of people are perfectly happy with: A game that broadly works, that you can tinker with and which your group can play.
Heck, for groups with a fairly open-ended play style, this may be all you ever need. The GM or group fills in any blanks when they show up.

So progressing to the next stage is not always a requirement (or even desirable).
But if you want to publish this thing, then we gotta get over the hump to Step 3 and that is where things get gnarly.
If you are inexperienced, you will run into the fact that you may not know what to look out for: The game will have rules that are worded poorly or ambiguously. An important concept may never be explained because it was obvious to everyone at the table.
Maybe you really hate writing out terrain rules and now you have to account for all of that.

Filling out a game from Step 2 to a stage where you can publish is often 50-80% writing crap you don't want to write, because someone else will need it. I hate writing terrain rules, but they have to be in there because some guy in Virginia is not going to know how I handle it at my own table.

What about that section everyone skips that talks about in-game scale and what each figure represents? Anyone enjoy writing those?

I tend to call this "The Suck" because its writing things that aren't that much fun, but are important.

So between The Suck and all the things you don't know yet, there's a high chance your game stops here. In fact, take a look at almost any project on forums and message boards and this is where they died.
When I did research before doing Renegade Scout, I found 6 or 7 attempts at reviving / cloning / redoing Rogue Trader. They all died here.

Am I amazing at writing then, since I made it?
No, but experience counts for a lot here. If you have a mental check list of obvious things people will ask about (because they asked you about them last time), you know where things should go and you have a sense of how to phrase things, you can get to a point where only 10-20% of designs fail at this stage.
How do you get those? By doing it and screwing it up. Or by doing it and doing okay. Or maybe your first game is great! Either way, there's no substitute for actually putting in time at the keyboard.
The good news is that while talent matters, a systematic sense of what to look out for is something anyone can develop with experience.

Step 3 is the Actual game
Okay, so you've tested your game, badgering someone else into testing it too, you've fixed all the stuff that wasn't explained well, tweaked the mechanic that was obviously broken, adjusted the thing that made no sense.
You've added your chrome and fluff text and found some stuff to put in there to look pretty (or go for the 80's typewriter look).

Congratulations. You have a game to inflict upon the world.
Pour one out for the 100 games that died along the way so that "Laser Robot Feels Bad" can fly to the top of the Wargame Vault best sellers list.

If you have questions, let me know.

PS: Someone should definitely write this game.

2 responses

Improving usability of gaming texts.

This is an updated repost from the old blog.

Book layout is a professional skill, which means it is tough to do without any training. If you are an independent developer, you are likely taking this burden on yourself.

Game books have the distinct quality that they have to be referenced during play. That sounds obvious but it means we need to consider things that don't apply to a novel or other piece of writing.

This post shares a few practical tips I apply and which you may find to be helpful as well.

So... here are "Weasel's Rules of Making Text better". They are not in any particular order of importance.

Feel free to leave comments or to share them elsewhere, add your own tips or modify these to fit.

1:
Decide if you intend the reader to print or read on the screen.

Obviously people will do both. If you are primarily anticipating screen reading, I find that single column layouts tend to be easier on a tablet device, while dual columns work better on paper.

A dual column also tends to reduce the page count slightly.

2:
Whenever possible tables, flow charts and similar should fit on a single page.

These are things the player will refer to during play, so having to page flip or scroll makes the book much harder to use.

If you are doing a print book, a table or flow chart crossing facing pages will work.

3:
Try to avoid having a few lines of text spill over to the next page or column.
This again reduces readability when the player is trying to reference a rule in play, but it can also lead to parts of a rule being missed or not understood.

4:
Try to define your rules terms clearly. When you have established a rules term, try to avoid using the same term in casual conversation in the rules.

It can help to mark rules terms in capitalized letters or marking key concepts in bold, but if overdone it can end up detracting rather than adding to the game.

You also want to get your terminology as consistent as possible. If the game action for making a ranged attack is called Firing then try to use that throughout instead of referring to both firing, shooting, attacking and so forth.

Try to separate flavor text and rules text so it is easy to reference the rules aspect during play.
Example:

"German machine guns typically had high rates of fire, permitting the squad to rely on them to a greater degree.

Add +1 Attack Die when firing with a German Machine Gun Team"

6:
While it's considered old-fashioned, I think the old board-game style of rules and sub-rules works rather well.

Use formatting to indicate whether a rule is a sub-set of an existing rule. For example, if you have your Movement rules, you may have a sub-set that discusses Running or Hiding.
If each main rule is in BOLD AND ALL CAPS you might have sub-sets in CURSIVE CAPS.

You can do similar things for optional or advanced rules.

Limit big blocks of text. I use a rule of thumb to never have more than 5 lines of text before a line break.
In dual column layouts, you might go to 6 or 7 lines.

Large, dense text blocks are hard to read for a lot of people and are hard to reference during play.
Remember, we're writing games, not literature: Our use cases are different.

You may also benefit from adding more line breaks than you normally would. If a special condition applies to a rule, it may be clearer on its own line than tagged on at the end. This can be taken case by case.

8:
It seems a common best practice is that each page should ideally have something to break up the text, whether it is an illustration, example, text box or something else.

9:
If you can try to fit illustrations or photos near somewhat related rules. Your vehicle chapter should have pictures of tanks for example. This also makes it easier to use the book at a glance because people often memorize "the vehicle damage table is next to the photo of the big robot miniature".

10:
When it comes to writing rules, pay close attention to your choice of words like "will" and "may".
When you review your game rules, read them as literally as possible because that's what a substantial portion of your audience will do to.

If read literally, does the rule say what you intend it to say ?

"Characters within 2" of an enemy may attack in close combat" suggests I can opt not to attack, while "Characters within 2" of an enemy must attack in close combat" says I have to attack.

Playtesting. What you actually need

We've all bought books that boasted of YEARS of playtesting on the back of the book, despite having entire rules chapters that make no sense.

I'm going to contend that playtesting is not a linear progression or a progress bar in an RPG. More isn't better. Better is better.

Let's dive in:

This goes for board games, card games, miniatures games, roleplaying games and probably all manner of other stuff too.

There's a few different things you can do that I would fit under "testing" all of which has varying amounts of value.

* Casual reading

This is the most basic level: Have other people read your game and tell you what they think.

This is good for providing a basic gut-level "does this look cool?" impression.
However, it rarely provides substantial feedback.
If you are soliciting feedback from random strangers, you have no idea if they are crazy and most will be incapable of providing the kind of mechanical insights you need.

Get a little bit of this, but don't rely on it.

* Critical reading

A line by line reading of the text with an eye towards rules that aren't explained well, references that aren't repeated, etc.

This requires a person with attention to detail and an understanding of game mechanics.

You need at least one person doing this.

* Proof reading

A thorough read aimed at catching typos, wrong words, grammatical problems etc.
This is best done by someone with experience in editing, but reasonable results can be obtained if you have a few people go through the text.

You need at least one person doing this.

* Math testing

Sitting down with dice and a calculator and crunching the numbers.
How likely is an attack to hit? How many attacks will destroy their target? If X amount of troops fire, what is the expected outcome? What are the best and worst case scenarios?

This often leaves out the "soft" factors that happen on a gaming table (for example a unit is often not able to fire in every turn of a battle) but can be invaluable in establishing the base lines for how the system is going to function.

Just remember that theoretical effectiveness is always higher than actual effectiveness (miniatures units have blocked lines of sight or are forced to redeploy, RPG characters take non-combat actions etc.)

This will save you a ton of time and ensure you have a sound basis for your game.

* Personal play test

Play testing done personally by the writer.
This is often solo or with personal friends.

This is the initial "Crash test" to figure out if the game works at all.
Beyond a few games to verify the concept, this is a diminishing return because you already know how everything is /supposed/ to work.

* Directed play test

Play testing set up by the creator (or a close associate) but with people who aren't inherently in your play group. A club or store game f.x.

Pay close attention to what rules the group internalizes quickly vs what rules they keep struggling with or flat out forgetting.
What rules do they get excited about? What parts do they protest?

Try to let the game "run itself" as much as possible.
Is your reference sheet enough to let them play through a few turns?

* Blind play test

The gold standard:

A group plays the game without you being there to tell them what to do.

This is where the real play testing happens: Your future customer will not have you present to explain exactly what that rule means. Your text needs to stand on its own feet.

To be of value of course you need a group that is willing to provide feedback in detail, isn't afraid to interpret how they think things should work if the rules aren't clear and explain that to you.

This also means you need to take it in stride. They might hate your game. They might do it wrong. They might love it BECAUSE they did it wrong.
You want to write games for people, you gotta play in the big boy/girl/robot/non-binary leagues and take your lumps.

* * * * *
So now that we know the ways you can put your design through the paces, what should you focus on?

First and foremost get feedback. Any feedback.
If you are an unknown, that can be hard. The gaming hobby is full of "idea guys" and you have to convince them that your idea is better than the 100 other guys who just re-invented D&D but the elf is called a belf this time.

It can help to put out a beta version. Make it clear it's a work in progress and make it substantial enough to be a game in its own right and put it up for download. People love the idea of a game they can help influence.

If nobody bites when you put it on a forum, put it on rpgnow and charge a dollar or make it PWYW:
The capitalist priesthood teaches us that only things that cost money have value.

Once you have people's attention, look at the feedback you get:
Some will be people who just casually read through it and will give you the equivalent of "this sucks" or "this is cool". Those are a handy barometer but aren't really that useful to go anywhere.

Look for and listen for the people who put in the effort to read it in detail. Who asks questions about that optional rule on page 34, who says "we tried this over the weekend and had some questions".
There's a lot of nerds out there who love doing this stuff and play testing is a skill just as well as writing is.

Some of the people will be crazy.
Some will convince themselves that your game would be PERFECT for [insert concept here that you have no interest in].
Don't argue, just politely thank them and move on.

Ultimately, what you want is the blind play test:
Each game played by a decent group that you are NOT a part of is worth 10 games you put on yourself.

* * * * *
So why does the book say "playtested for a decade" and you found 5 mistakes and a rule thats outright broken?

Because what they mean is usually "the author and his group played this twice a month for years and they already knew how everything is supposed to work".
The authors copy has "+2 for cover" pencilled in the margins but it never made it to the final version you just paid 50 dollars for.

Even blind playtesters can't always catch everything.
Some options don't get tested.
A particular character weapon+ability combo may simply never have come up.
RPG playtesting is notoriously difficult, because 90% of an RPG session tends to have nothing to do with the game system at all.

A group may have playtested your RPG for months and provided good feedback, but their campaign didn't involve [thing] that the problem exists with, so it never came up.

Playtesting seriously often means ensuring that situations happen that won't do so in a conventional game.
Launch a charge, just so you can see the close combat system.
Try to persuade the orc villain.
Level up in a strange way.
Try having both sides dig in their forces and shoot it out, instead of marching on the objective.

You have to be willing to push the boundaries of the system to find out if the boundaries even work at all.

* * * * *

I hope this helps a little bit with getting better testing for your games.

Let me know what you think and what your own experiences offer.

Good luck out there.

Common questions

A somewhat rewritten repost from the old blog. This can also serve as a sort of catch-all for questions I am often asked, but which have answers too short to fill a full blog post on their own. I am fairly private online so forgive some questions not being extremely detailed.

Who are you exactly?

My name is Ivan, I am 42 years old, I was born and grew up in Denmark and live in the United States currently. At this point I have spent about half my life in each place and depending on which day of the week I feel like one, both or neither.

What is your day job?

Nordic Weasel Games is my day job and pays for my rent, car and other things.

Are you / do you believe in / do you support X ?

These days I do not tend to discuss politics with people I am not friends with.

If you understand Danish politics, I voted SF before I moved.

What is your opinion on X ?

I do not generally comment on hobby drama or personality clashes.

Do you do x social media platform?

Probably not. I try out things now and again but I tend to find the experience aggravating and unpleasant.

What do you play personally?

A bit of everything when I get the chance. I often play games made by other people when playing recreationally, since it helps me to not be in "work brain" mode all the time. I also like to try different games.

With a couple of exceptions I tend not to like games that require purchasing a specific range of figures so I prefer more generic science fiction games.

These days most of my miniatures gaming is historical. I also enjoy hex-and-counter wargames and do a lot of roleplaying. I don't really play CCG's any longer though I do enjoy the format.

Are you part of OSR/Oldhammer/some other movement?

Not generally though I have dabbled in all kinds of things over the years.

What scales of miniatures do you collect?

Primarily 10mm and 1/72 scale historical figures and 15mm science fiction figures.

I have some smaller piles of other stuff but I try to avoid accumulating too much stuff.

Is it true you write for 15mm first?

I usually test games in 15mm or 1/72 scale first. It happens that the distances I like in those scales also tend to match up with common ranges and movement rates for 28mm games, so it works out just fine.

What happened to X product?

Some game lines just don't catch on and I can't justify spending time on them. Other games I did everything I wanted to and the game is finished as far as I figure it. Sometimes I just simply don't have the time to do more with it.

Specifically regarding Trench Storm and FAD the rights were sold off.

Why do some betas not get a full release?

This usually happens if there wasn't enough interest or because in hindsight the system was too fiddly or not very fun to play. Some games saw a hundred or more downloads during the beta and not a single comment on them, which is a good sign that the idea needs more work.

Why aren't you doing X obvious thing?

It may be because I am not super interested in the topic (superheroes), I need to do more research first (naval combat) or it is a really good idea but I haven't had the time for it yet.

If the idea is one that requires significant upfront money or a high chance of getting stock with unsold items, I am 1000% less likely to be interested.

Is there some secret logic behind what projects you do?

It has to be something I am interested in personally. It needs to not be overdone in the market (usually) and I need to have an idea of how to put my own spin on it. It also needs to be something that I think somebody will pay money for.

Is it FiveCore or 5Core?

Both get used online. I prefer FiveCore.

I want to write games, what advice do you have?

Write a lot. Build up a back catalogue. Every project will encounter "The Suck": Learn to power through it. Stay out of internet drama. Treat every person with kindness. Don't pursue internet trends.

What things will you never do, so we should stop asking?

Anything to do with the OSR or D&D stuff in general.

Any edgelord stuff.

What are your favorite bands of all time?

Bolt Thrower and Blind Guardian.

What are your favorite movies of all time?

Aliens, Shawshank Redemption, Pretty Woman.

What are your favorite authors of all time?

Michael Moorcock, Mercedes Lackey, Jack Vance.