What is a sucessful scenario?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
I remember one time I took a nice young lady to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Must have been somewhere between the agricultural exhibit and anthropology when she suddenly . . .

Yeah...the combination of planting seeds in fertile, deep, and well-irrigated furrows, followed by gazing at primitive, naked and hairy primates usually has that effect on me and my dates, too...[;)]

Anyhow, back to the subject...[:-]...I agree that the primary measure of success of a scenario in a game that we play is how much fun we have playing it. There is nothing wrong, per se, with an...ahem...academic interest in the game, as long as that is how you derive your "fun factor". In the academic's defense though, immersion is often a key aspect of their ability to enjoy the stimulation...err...simulation, and making sure they are all in the right sizes, shapes, numbers and positions is terribly important for some people to really "get in the mood"...[:D]

[*Lava*]

Hi!

Fun can mean different things to different people.

TOAW caters to just about any wargaming definition of fun.

I'm a casual gamer, so fun for me is normally a well built scenario vs Elmer.

That's why I like it so much.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: Lava

I'm a casual gamer, so fun for me is normally a well built scenario vs Elmer.

Ditto... I can't make the commitment to indulge in pbem so a well designed scenario with a PO that puts up a decent challenge makes my day (actually days... weeks LOL)

[TOCarroll]

I guess I always ask the dumb questions, but.....I play and enjoy chess. Since I am American, I am not sure what German Board Games you mean. The equivalent of Scrabble, or Parchesi? Or more like Advanced Third Reich (in German, of course)?

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Yeah...the combination of planting seeds in fertile, deep, and well-irrigated furrows . . .

Nicely put, but lets all keep our heads out of the banjo ditch.

Regards, RhinoBones

[rhinobones]

[font="times new roman"]
Just to make things fair, thought I should write down a few of my ideas about what makes a scenario successful.  I think the following are characteristics of good scenarios no matter whether the scenario is a monster, a PBM only scenario or a scenario designed for the beer and pretzel crowd against their favorite AOwPI.
 

The scenario must perform to the designer’s expectations.  Whether this is what I call a fun scenario, or a serious endeavor to simulate history, the nature of the scenario is immaterial so long as the author is satisfied with the result.
The scenario must challenge the player (and/or players as appropriate).  Ideally, to achieve victory, the player must master the concepts of maneuver, logistics, deployment, strategy, operations and tactics.  Realistically, incorporating just three or four of these concepts should result in some mighty fine scenarios.  Incorporating all six can be a challenge left to the Grand Masters of scenario authorship.
The scenario must be compelling to the point where the player enjoys returning to the battlefield and renewing the engagement.[/ol]
 
These are my criterion for success.  Note that there is no mention of time frame, length or historical fidelity.  I do not believe that a scenario is dependent on these factors in order to be judged good or successful.
 
There are several other elements which I personally like to see in scenarios, however, I would consider them as “enhancements” rather than criterion.  As follows:
 

The scenario should never be predictable to the point where both sides always know where, when and in what numbers troops are deployed.  This includes off map events which influence the battle.   I believe this completely negates the value of the “Fog of War” setting.
If at all possible, refrain from using static Point Paying Objective Hexes.  Did Rommel view Tobruk as a 50 VP prize or was it an opportunity to increase his supply while decreasing the enemy supply?  Point is, there are more creative ways to reward military success rather than awarding VPs.
Randomize, randomize, randomize.  There are plenty of events to do so.
Make the map larger than the necessary battlefield so that map edges to not form artificial barriers to flanking maneuvers.  [/ol]
 
Enough of my ideas.  Obviously the measure of success is a personal matter, and I can accept that many in the community have a different set of scales.  This is how it should be and I think it is an indicator of the success that TOAW has enjoyed as a game system for the public.  The only issue I have is that some feel the need to express that TOAW can, should or is intended to be used  only in the manner dictated by their personal opinion.  I think that there is room for everybody in this pool and that all opinions should be respected.
 
Regards, RhinoBones
[/font]

[Curtis Lemay]

I like a wargame to place the players in the shoes of the historical commanders. To do that, it needs to model reality as well as possible. That doesn't mean it recreates the historical result, just the historical circumstances.

I'm not sure if Haig, Rommel, or Westmoreland were having fun in their historical campaigns. But filling their shoes and succeeding under the same circumstances where they failed tends to be fun to wargamers. But that means relishing any circumstance that can happen in war. If you were an actual commander assigned to Anzio, it wouldn't matter that you really wanted to fight manuver tank battles in the desert.

And that means scenarios should really be different, to reflect their reality. Congested and tough going when that was the historical reality, wide open and wild when that was the reality. Unit count, map size, game length, etc. should all be dictated by the situation, not personal preference.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I like a wargame to place the players in the shoes of the historical commanders. To do that, it needs to model reality as well as possible. That doesn't mean it recreates the historical result, just the historical circumstances.

This seems to be a popular view of TOAW, and probably of war games in general. This is good, but I think it places an artifical cap on the possibilities available to the TOAW scenario designer.

I'm not sure if Haig, Rommel, or Westmoreland were having fun in their historical campaigns.

I'm more than sure that they were not having fun.

Unit count, map size, game length, etc. should all be dictated by the situation, not personal preference.

Why is this?

Regards, RhinoBones

[Ecthelion008]

If you read the holy words of Norm as stated in the manual, you'll see that it is all about choosing the right parameters in terms of:

Hex size to Unit Size

Map size to Army size (how many units are there and how much of the map they cover)

Turn length (the old question of realism versus playability i.e. It'd be very realistic to have a 6 hour turn for FitE, but utterly unplayable) 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

I’m not buying this as a legitimate response. Definition of fun? I provided a definition of fun as it relates to TOAW PBM gamming. And what do museums have to do with any of this? Nonsense!

Well, it's semantics, but I wouldn't call museums fun. TOAW is something similar. As Grant says, if I want fun- and there's nothing wrong with fun- I will go play something else. I won't crack open Seelowe, nor will I head up to the Imperial War Museum. I do those things for other reasons.

Come on, you’re supposed to be educated. This response is as useless as the quip you provided to the original posting.

Actually I stand by my original point. Designers work for themselves, nobody else. Therefore a scenario is a success if it does what you want. If what you want is for players to like it, fine. If you want it to be a great simulation, fine. If you want the file to work out to exactly 666kb, also fine. I don't see why you're objecting to this.

If you go with the right person, any museum with dark corners can be a whole lot of fun. I remember one time I took a nice young lady to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Must have been somewhere between the agricultural exhibit and anthropology when she suddenly . . .

Yeah, thanks for that bonesy.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I agree that the primary measure of success of a scenario in a game that we play is how much fun we have playing it.

This is going to make me really unpopular, but the take that Norm takes in the Volume I and COW manuals really is quite different.

Again, see my original point. You can play TOAW for whatever reason you want. However, I think saying that "to be a success, a scenario must be fun", is an extremely narrow view. Does that mean all the test scenarios that are created for TOAD are utter failures?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

I guess I always ask the dumb questions, but.....I play and enjoy chess. Since I am American, I am not sure what German Board Games you mean.

I think he was thinking of stuff like Settlers of Cataan. That's a German board game, and it's fun. Also should probably appeal to most wargamers. Maybe it's the hexes. Or if you're Rhinobones or JAMiAM, maybe it's the busty German maiden on the front of the box.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

The scenario must perform to the designer’s expectations.  Whether this is what I call a fun scenario, or a serious endeavor to simulate history, the nature of the scenario is immaterial so long as the author is satisfied with the result.

Isn't that what I said? The remarks you categorised as "useless"?

The rest of your post really just gets bogged down in making points which, though interesting, don't have much to do with saying whether or not a scenario is a success. The most popular scenarios are precisely that because most players like predictability, etc. They don't care that cutting the enemy off against the map edge is nonsense. If the designer's intention was to make the scenarios popular, then they were hugely successful- despite violating many of your tenets in the most flagrant ways possible.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I like a wargame to place the players in the shoes of the historical commanders. To do that, it needs to model reality as well as possible. That doesn't mean it recreates the historical result, just the historical circumstances.

This seems to be a popular view of TOAW, and probably of war games in general. This is good, but I think it places an artifical cap on the possibilities available to the TOAW scenario designer.

Which is why I specifically used the term "wargame" rather than "scenario". Scenarios can be other things than wargames.

I'm not sure if Haig, Rommel, or Westmoreland were having fun in their historical campaigns.

I'm more than sure that they were not having fun.

That was sort of my point. Fun is not the primary objective in wargaming design - reality is. But, peversely, fun usually results once the wargamer is absorbed into the simulation. If fun is the objective itself, then certain "fun" factors, like manuverability and blitzkrieg, find their way into the simulation, even if they weren't possible historically. This, perversely, ruins fun because it destroys absorption into the simulation once the wargamer becomes aware of how unrealistic the modeling was.

Unit count, map size, game length, etc. should all be dictated by the situation, not personal preference.

Why is this?

Regards, RhinoBones

If your personel preferences dictate those factors, your scenarios all turn out feeling the same - just with different names on the map and counters. If reality dictates them, you get scenarios that each have a radically different feel to them, as per the real situation. Designers should free themselves from the limits of their personal preferences.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

I'm not sure if Haig, Rommel, or Westmoreland were having fun in their historical campaigns.

I'm more than sure that they were not having fun.

A lot of commanders enjoy war. Can't find the damned quotes but the elder Moltke and Roosevelt alike expressed their fondness for it. There's also
"I suppose I can't expect everyone to be as excited as I am." - Lord Gort, upon arriving at the HQ of the newly formed BEF.

I wouldn't describe this as fun, though. Again, semantics.

[JAMiAM]

"Fun" is not a four-letter word...[:-]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
This is going to make me really unpopular...

Oh Ben, you'll always be popular, because you're so fun to argue with...[;)]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Again, see my original point. You can play TOAW for whatever reason you want.

Exactly, and I daresay that whatever reason you choose, it will generally bring you some form of pleasure, hence it is "fun".

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
However, I think saying that "to be a success, a scenario must be fun", is an extremely narrow view.

That's nothing that I said, but if it is an attempt to paraphrase my feelings, then I believe you're missing the boat, by taking it out of context. To a grognard, struggling through an immersive, challenging and realistic simulation to test your operational prowess against your historical counterparts is fun. To a scenario designer, the sense of accomplishment gained by designing your creation - whatever the original motivation - and the insights gained into the game engine and historical perspective is fun. At least to some.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Does that mean all the test scenarios that are created for TOAD are utter failures?

What? You don't find mind-numbing execution of trivial scenarios for the purposes of collecting, collating, and analyzing empirical data fun? LoL...because those are "work" and "work" IS a four-letter word...[:D]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Or if you're Rhinobones or JAMiAM, maybe it's the busty German maiden on the front of the box.

What? I don't recall one on my game box!?! I got 'gypped!!![:@]

LoL[:D]

[nemo69]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

A lot of commanders enjoy war.

Seems so. Taken from the Osprey Campaign volume on Verdun:

Mangin had commanded a division adjacent to Pétain's during the retreat to the Marne in 1914. Theirs HQs adjacent one lunchtime, Pétain produced some bread and cold meat from his rucksack; Mangin snapped his fingers and an impeccably dressed Senegalese orderly assembled a camp table, laid it with proper cutlery and - in a few moments - graced it with a steak, sautéed potatoes and a bottle of wine. Pétain sarcastically asked whether Mangin knew they were at war. 'En effet,' said Mangin, 'that is precisely why I must be well fed. I have been at war all my life and have never felt better than I do now. You have been at war a fortnight and look half-dead'.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Exactly, and I daresay that whatever reason you choose, it will generally bring you some form of pleasure, hence it is "fun".

Well, basically we just disagree on semantics here.

That's nothing that I said,

Quite. It was what Rhinobones said.

What? You don't find mind-numbing execution of trivial scenarios for the purposes of collecting, collating, and analyzing empirical data fun? LoL...because those are "work" and "work" IS a four-letter word...[:D]

If it was work, you'd be paying me for it. So I guess it's charity.

Perversely, next week I get my paycheck from a local charity. Oh well.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

What? I don't recall one on my game box!?! I got 'gypped!!![:@]

At the risk of turning this into one of your birthday posts over at SZO;

http://thoughthammer.com/images/settler ... oxShot.jpg

An undeniably Germanic cleavage.