There are essays about this, so I'm not about to add my own to the mix. Instead, just a couple of thoughts that always come to mind when I think of this topic.
Nothing spicy, just my own experiences.
I've played miniature wargames since I was a kid, and a few years ago I dipped into Bolt Action.
Some weapons use a blast template, like you got in the old Games Workshop games. You place the cardboard circle over the enemies you're shooting at to see how many get caught in the explosion.
 |
| Like these things |
The book has some templates in the back, but I didn't have them prepared ahead of my first game, so we just eyeballed it with a tape measure.
The next time I was playing with a friend who was new to miniature wargames. I wanted to avoid the fuzzy measuring I'd used in my previous game, so I decided to use a variant rule where you just roll a die to see how many miniatures are hit by a blast weapon. This is already how the game works when the targets are inside a building, so the numbers were already waiting to go.
Now perhaps I just have the brain of a lab rat, but in the first game I made sure I kept my individual soldiers as spread out as possible to avoid the blasts, and in the second game I kept them packed tight together because I didn't need to worry about that and thought it looked cooler.
Is Bolt Action, played with the blast templates, a game about intricate unit cohesion and maintaining the most effective formation? Well, not really, but it certainly made me spend a few seconds thinking about it each time I moved a unit, and it quite drastically affected how our board looked during play.
This sounds obvious, right? Acting within certain constraints to try to win is basically just... why games have rules.
My second example is Traveller, which I've been running as an almost year long campaign now.
So much has been said about the economy of Traveller, and why it works as a catalyst for space adventures. My campaign has been quite different.
The players got absurdly lucky during the lifepath character creation and wound up with a refitted cruise liner, a chunk of its mortgage already paid off, and good amount of cash to fund their first few trades. The rules for shipping freight (as opposed to speculative trading) were generous enough that they could reliably hit their mortgage payment each month through honest work.
Of course, players are players, so money became an issue later on, mostly through problems of their own making. Less like desperate traders struggling against a system that's stacked against them, more like lottery winners squandering their winnings until they nearly bankrupt themselves.
Now this isn't a case where I used a rules variant. This was standard Mongoose Traveller character creation but with very lucky rolls. Still, we can imagine Traveller having quite a different reputation if the rules were adjusted to make this sort of setup more common.
Yet it seems like no amount of starting wealth could stop the players getting into trouble and gambling their wealth on a stupid trade.
Perhaps the competition factor is key here. I'm not a competitive wargamer, but I try to win. My Traveller players were more likely playing to create fun moments at the table.
I guess I buy into the idea the rules can nudge you to do act differently, but there are other more powerful forces at work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post was originally sent as a reward to all Patreon supporters, and is released freely on this site the week after its original publication.
If you want to support my blog, podcasts, and video content then head over to my Patreon.
