What is a sucessful scenario?

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
. . . there's nothing wrong with fun- I will go play something else.

And why is TOAW not fun?

Regards, RhinoBones

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

And why is TOAW not fun?

It's a semantic argument. The satisfaction I get from TOAW isn't what I'd describe as fun.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Thanks.

I guess that's a shot of the infamous "huge...tracts of land" that is so important in "settling"...[:D]

I've got the old time version, with the simple black silhoutted hamlet, against a sunset. No birthday shots there...[;)]

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: If you're just looking for a fun game or a purely competitive exercise, there are thousands of better choices than TOAW, like German board games or chess(both of which can be played online).

Why are these choices better than TOAW? I thoroughly enjoy playing a fun game of PBM TOAW . . . guess I misunderstood the purpose of TOAW. Not for fun eh! Bummer.

Regards RhinoBones

I didn't say that TOAW isn't fun. What I was getting at is where it excels- historical simulation. Chess is superior to TOAW as a competitive exercise, but it's abstract, and thus I find it less fun. Much of the enjoyment that I get from TOAW comes from the historical situations into which the player is placed. Remove that historicity and you've removed most of my reason for wanting to play it. It's at that point that I'd just as soon play something like Settlers of Cataan or Tikal or chess, all of which are going to be far more extensively playtested and balanced than any TOAW scenario. Chess in particular has been around for thousands of years and there are innumerable books about the strategy of chess, opening gambits and midgames, etc. It is quite obviously superior to TOAW in pure gameplay terms and as a competitive exercise.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

And why is TOAW not fun?

It's a semantic argument. The satisfaction I get from TOAW isn't what I'd describe as fun.

..to muddy the semantics a little more..a successful scen has to give satisfaction, win or lose, which isn't the same as "fun"

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: 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]

LOL! I proposed to my beloved wife in the Field Museum in Chicago!

I agree with the point made above, just finishing a working prototype should be considered "a success," no matter how many flaws, shortcomings, or oversights. Given the degree of voluntary work involved, no one has any basis to "trash" scenarios as being unsuccessful. Providing friendly comments, observations, etc., is one thing, but these always need to be made with the tone of sympathy and gratitude to the scenario maker.

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

And why is TOAW not fun?

It's a semantic argument. The satisfaction I get from TOAW isn't what I'd describe as fun.

@Golden Delicious: Perhaps more 'just playing' and less '.sce debug' might make a diff, eh? Do some brews, just play the damn thing for a change and unplug your modem. Having fun with a favorite toy isn't neccesarily evil, LOL!

It's only 'work when you make it so!!!!

Everyone needs a vacation sometimes, even if it's only overnight, eh? [:D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: L`zard

@Golden Delicious: Perhaps more 'just playing' and less '.sce debug' might make a diff, eh? Do some brews, just play the damn thing for a change and unplug your modem. Having fun with a favorite toy isn't neccesarily evil, LOL!

I play the game quite a lot, thanks. I also find designing the game about equally as satisfying.

[Sandrik]

This point has been made already in a round-about way, but to me in addition to the points made above a scenario (at least if historical but also in alternative histories) must be able to meet the players expectations. I just played a scenario from another company (it doesn't matter which game/company for me to make the my point) six times in a row, 3 and 3 respectively. Now the scenario is the high water mark for the attacker and the last scenario in the campaign to which all of the scenarios have been leading up to. I have reached the conclusion that the historical result is totally and absolutely impossible to achive in this scenario and in fact the attacker can not even come close. This has ruined the entire game for me. Now note my point is the scenario should be capable of achiving the historical outcome, not every playing should but I would say you should be able to achive a historical outcome (to pull a number out of my ****) 33 percent of the time for historical scenarios. The point is my expectations of what I hould be able to achive (at least the possibility of a historical outcome) have been dashed by this scenario.

It was never advertised as an "Alternative Historical" outcome thus IMHO this is not a sucessfull scenario no matter what the designer intended or the fact that they completed the work!!!!!!

Al

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Sandrik It was never advertised as an "Alternative Historical" outcome thus IMHO this is not a sucessfull scenario no matter what the designer intended or the fact that they completed the work!!!!!!

Al

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Just given that making scenarios is voluntary, I don't think it is possible for a scenario to get an "F" (failing) grade. If you can start it up, and it runs without bugs, glitches etc., then it is at least a "D" for effort. I teach university, and I 've given my share of "F"s, so this is not a reflection of me being one of tree-hugging softies or something. I just think that, judging everyone who might make a scenario in terms of the best of them is counterproductive given that the creation of more scenarios, depends on voluntary action by fans who are not getting paid a cent.

Imagine if you were a pretty smart guy, you made a scenario that worked, and then some vet calls it an "unsuccessful" scenario. Wouldn't be too motivating to learn to make it better would it? Even you, a scenario making veteran probably feel the slings and arrows when people trash your stuff, eh?

Saying that a scenario doesn't work right because of glitches, or that it does not seem possible to get a historical outcome, or any other manner of constructive criticism is one thing, but labeling one that is not superb "not a success" just seems to me to be counterproductive to everyone.

Moreover, look at what you gained by playing that "problematic" (or you might prefer "unbalanced") scenario you mention. By going through the whole thing, even though your efforts to win an historical outcome were thwarted by design issues, you must have gained more insight into what the design issues are that relate to the historical outcome. In short, even when a scenario is unbalanced or problematic, it can be an educational or instructive experience.

I can fully agree that it is worthwhile to distinguish scenarios in terms of their merit: Perfect, Superb, Awesome, Great, Very Good, Good, Above Average, Average, Below Average, Problematic, Unbalanced, Technically-Flawed (e.g., one game dynamic does not work with others, or the game crashes, suffers bugs, etc.).

[Sandrik]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Just given that making scenarios is voluntary, I don't think it is possible for a scenario to get an "F" (failing) grade. If you can start it up, and it runs without bugs, glitches etc., then it is at least a "D" for effort. I teach university, and I 've given my share of "F"s, so this is not a reflection of me being one of tree-hugging softies or something. I just think that, judging everyone who might make a scenario in terms of the best of them is counterproductive given that the creation of more scenarios, depends on voluntary action by fans who are not getting paid a cent.

I should have been more clear in my post. This was a stock scenario for the game in question. In this case the guy designer was paid for his work. However I still think folks doing vol work and who take pride in their design should try to hit a certain standard. As a person who's designed a fair number of scenarios, for many games ( all the way back to Tanks & a board game back in the past ) both for pay and free, I have always striven to ensure my historical scenarios are at least capable of achiving the historical result, that's just a baseline!!!!!!!!

Al

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Sandrik

I should have been more clear in my post. This was a stock scenario for the game in question. In this case the guy designer was paid for his work.

Yeah- that's different. However this often happens. Companies can't afford to pay much for scenarios so the designers don't pour anything like the necessary hours into them.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

ORIGINAL: Sandrik It was never advertised as an "Alternative Historical" outcome thus IMHO this is not a sucessfull scenario no matter what the designer intended or the fact that they completed the work!!!!!!

Al

, so this is not a reflection of me being one of tree-hugging softies or something.

..sorry, you are a tree-hugger, but are shy about saying it out loud ?, or you have a problem with hugging trees which you'd like to overcome ? or you're one of those low-brow 20C-neanderthal types that doesn't realise that trees are people (and eco-systems) too ?..[&:]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Roosevelt's exact quote was 'isn't war magnificent?' He uttered it as he was charging up San Juan Hill (he was addressing a mortally wounded Roughrider.) Similar, if more nuanced sentiments, were expressed by Oliver Wendell Holmes.

As far as great generals go, I think most of them must have liked war in some sense. It's almost impossible to be good at something if you unequivocally hate it.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
I suspect that from most designers' viewpoint getting any feedback whatsoever on their scenarios would be considered a success. It is truly amazing to me that so much work is done in an almost complete vacuum.

Indeed,

A very insightful observation.

Ray (alias Lava)

..yahh but scen designers tend to be a little strange so isolation and no sharp objects is a good idea..

[a white rabbit]

..as to the thread , for me a successful scen is one i want to play, then play in a mirror, and sometimes just look at to admire the work, and play later when i've forgotten the details..

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

ORIGINAL: Sandrik It was never advertised as an "Alternative Historical" outcome thus IMHO this is not a sucessfull scenario no matter what the designer intended or the fact that they completed the work!!!!!!

Al

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Just given that making scenarios is voluntary, I don't think it is possible for a scenario to get an "F" (failing) grade. If you can start it up, and it runs without bugs, glitches etc., then it is at least a "D" for effort. I teach university, and I 've given my share of "F"s, so this is not a reflection of me being one of tree-hugging softies or something. I just think that, judging everyone who might make a scenario in terms of the best of them is counterproductive given that the creation of more scenarios, depends on voluntary action by fans who are not getting paid a cent.

Imagine if you were a pretty smart guy, you made a scenario that worked, and then some vet calls it an "unsuccessful" scenario. Wouldn't be too motivating to learn to make it better would it? Even you, a scenario making veteran probably feel the slings and arrows when people trash your stuff, eh?

Saying that a scenario doesn't work right because of glitches, or that it does not seem possible to get a historical outcome, or any other manner of constructive criticism is one thing, but labeling one that is not superb "not a success" just seems to me to be counterproductive to everyone...

I have a lot of thoughts about this -- not particularly consistent ones, either.

I'll start by observing that hearing someone trash my work certainly draws a reaction from me -- but it rarely discourages me.

Otherwise, 'fun' is certainly desirable, but not essential. JMS's Spanish Civil War scenario isn't particularly 'fun' -- but it has a real air of authenticity, and I'll play it. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole if he sacrificed authenticity to 'fun.'

On the other hand, I also like Ben's Poland -- and I have my doubts about how authentic it is. I just doubt the Poles managed to retain the kind of command and control he implies they did. But it is 'fun' for both sides, and things are accurate enough so that it could be authentic. I'd certainly have less interest in being the Pole if I couldn't see where the Germans were or something.

To an even greater extent, Jeremy's Fall Grau is 'fun' and I've enjoyed playing it, even though the accuracy is dreadful in a remarkable number of ways.

My own preference in design is for scrupulous accuracy almost irrespective of any other consideration -- play balance, playability, and especially 'fun.' However, I don't feel any need to impose that standard on others. I guess I'd say a failure is a design that fails in its own terms. If it was supposed to be accurate, and isn't, or if it's supposed to be 'fun,' and isn't. I think I have a particular pet peeve against scenarios that manage to produce the historical result by inaccurate means. A Plassy scenario that manages to have Clive win by giving him machine guns and the Mughals spears would be garbage, for example.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
. . . Otherwise, 'fun' is certainly desirable, but not essential.

This is an intriguing article to read. It is written by an acknowledged leader in scenario designer and it contains his views on both historical and non-historical scenario development. This includes a discussion of the scenario design philosophy which I describe as a “fun” design as an equal to (or close to) the design for historical accuracy philosophy.

I appreciate reading such a point of view.

Regards, RhinoBones

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: 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]

Actually I would prefer a good woman from the Zala region.

Pictures on a box does nothing for my libido.

Regards, RhinoBones

[shunwick]

I tend to agree with GD. A scenario is a success if it achieves what the designer wants it achieve. From what I can tell, TOAW players form a pretty broad church. Personally, the apparent fondness for things like FITE or EA mystify me. But, hey, whatever rocks your boat.

Best wishes,