It delivers the goods: scenario prerequisites

[Actionjick]

The US OBA draw pile thread sidetracked into what players look for in modern scenarios or what modern players look for. BattleSchool suggested the scenarios had to deliver the goods. I quite liked that description and was considering a poll but couldn't come up with a satisfactory list of prerequisites so I'll just pose the question: What does it take for a scenario to " deliver the goods " for you?

Thanks

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Do you mean individual preferences, or things every scenario needs to have? They're not the same thing.

I prefer small scenarios (company or smaller on each side) with low rules overhead (no night, amphib landings, arcane vehicle types) but those are just personal preferences.

On the other hand I like scenarios that each side has a chance to win (balance) and don't require a specific play style, or even a specific "school solution" in order to win - but that's less a preference than a necessity for being considered good.

 

[Actionjick]

Do you mean individual preferences, or things every scenario needs to have? They're not the same thing.

I prefer small scenarios (company or smaller on each side) with low rules overhead (no night, amphib landings, arcane vehicle types) but those are just personal preferences.

On the other hand I like scenarios that each side has a chance to win (balance) and don't require a specific play style, or even a specific "school solution" in order to win - but that's less a preference than a necessity for being considered good.

Individual preferences or your play group's preferences.

 

[Sparafucil3]

"Goods" vary from person to person. Personally, I like scenarios that feature maneuver on both sides. I prefer it if they present interesting challenges and a range of combined arms options. No one wants to decide on what to play, dice for sides, and end up in a sitzkrieg. Each turn, all you do is AM out of the line of fire and then Advance back into the line of fire. The biggest challenge you face is trying to rotate concealed units into the front line, rotating SW's as you go. At least with a fighting withdrawal, you have to make a decision on when to stay and when to go. JMO, YMMV. -- jim

 

[Actionjick]

Much like the old Earl Scheib commercial where he said I'll paint any car any color, I would play any scenario any side against any opponent(s). The playing was what I looked for to deliver the goods.

 

[gorkowskij]

At the risk of starting a food fight, I'll express some opinions.

Allegory underpins the best scenarios. A scenario should depict a “slice” of the source engagement rather than trying to account for the entire historical OB and timeline. Yes, some smallish scenarios can actually “have it all,” but that usually gets too fiddly with overlays, special rules, too few units and thus too much luck, etc. On the other hand, the allegory approach gives designers the latitude to properly balance and add tension by selectively representing various assets.

Options! Just because your historical counter part “ran it up the middle” does not mean you should have to do the same. Boards and time line should provide enough “space” to pursue alternative courses of action. Note, options do not necessarily require a change in “vector” if one can alter “thrust.” For example, if they did run it up the middle, you might do the same, but perhaps at a different pace with more smoke and assault movement vice a single human wave. The designer needs to give you enough time (turns) to do that.

Easy-to-digest Victory Conditions really enhance a scenario. A paragraph of stilted legalese designed to choreograph a certain rate of progress does the reverse.

Kinetic energy is a must. Both sides should have some big punches to throw as they bob and weave. There’s lots of ways to achieve this: squads with assault fire, tanks, gyro stabilizers, tank hunter heroes, Molotov cocktails, etc.

Don’t be afraid to avail stereotypes. Most of us are grownups and can take that in stride. It’s a real buzz kill when the Russians have a CVP cap.

 

[Actionjick]

At the risk of starting a food fight, I'll express some opinions.

Allegory underpins the best scenarios. A scenario should depict a “slice” of the source engagement rather than trying to account for the entire historical OB and timeline. Yes, some smallish scenarios can actually “have it all,” but that usually gets too fiddly with overlays, special rules, too few units and thus too much luck, etc. On the other hand, the allegory approach gives designers the latitude to properly balance and add tension by selectively representing various assets.

Options! Just because your historical counter part “ran it up the middle” does not mean you should have to do the same. Boards and time line should provide enough “space” to pursue alternative courses of action. Note, options do not necessarily require a change in “vector” if one can alter “thrust.” For example, if they did run it up the middle, you might do the same, but perhaps at a different pace with more smoke and assault movement vice a single human wave. The designer needs to give you enough time (turns) to do that.

Easy-to-digest Victory Conditions really enhance a scenario. A paragraph of stilted legalese designed to choreograph a certain rate of progress does the reverse.

Kinetic energy is a must. Both sides should have some big punches to throw as they bob and weave. There’s lots of ways to achieve this: squads with assault fire, tanks, gyro stabilizers, tank hunter heroes, Molotov cocktails, etc.

Don’t be afraid to avail stereotypes. Most of us are grownups and can take that in stride. It’s a real buzz kill when the Russians have a CVP cap.

I'm not sure if allegory is the word you're looking for as the definition I saw was a hidden meaning. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you meant by it. Thanks

 

[gorkowskij]

Right, I too have seen and been puzzled by that “hidden meaning” definition of allegory; I think it’s a bit off.

I prefer Webster’s definition; it’s more precise.

Definition of allegory

1: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence a writer known for his use of allegory also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression The poem is an allegory of love and jealousy.

2: a symbolic representation

Although allegory usually comes through in literature, for example one could say The Scarlet Letter is an allegory about social stigma, we can see it in games too. ASL is a “symbolic representation” of tactical combat. In ASL our “fictional figures” include leaders, squads, and AFVs made of cardboard. Through the rules they express “truths … about human existence.” For example, if you run through open ground, you will likely get mowed down by machine gun fire; but if you must, a good leader can help get the men moving. All of those truths come through in the ASL rules and are “lived” by those fictional characters.

Designers use allegory by focusing on the “symbolic representation.” For example, the original scenario 3, now scenario C, symbolically represents the battle for The Streets of Stalingrad with only one board and about 90 squads whereas a more “realistic” simulation would require dozens of boards and thousands of squads. But, thanks to ASL’s allegorical approach, all you need for this game is that one, emblematic slice – a fraction of the actual OB and time – that captures the essence of the matter.

Anyway, keeping that in mind when making scenarios is key. ASL’s “drill down detail” means that meticulous “simulations” are too likely to bog in detail.

 

[Actionjick]

Right, I too have seen and been puzzled by that “hidden meaning” definition of allegory; I think it’s a bit off.

I prefer Webster’s definition; it’s more precise.

Definition of allegory

1: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence a writer known for his use of allegory also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression The poem is an allegory of love and jealousy.

2: a symbolic representation

Although allegory usually comes through in literature, for example one could say The Scarlet Letter is an allegory about social stigma, we can see it in games too. ASL is a “symbolic representation” of tactical combat. In ASL our “fictional figures” include leaders, squads, and AFVs made of cardboard. Through the rules they express “truths … about human existence.” For example, if you run through open ground, you will likely get mowed down by machine gun fire; but if you must, a good leader can help get the men moving. All of those truths come through in the ASL rules and are “lived” by those fictional characters.

Designers use allegory by focusing on the “symbolic representation.” For example, the original scenario 3, now scenario C, symbolically represents the battle for The Streets of Stalingrad with only one board and about 90 squads whereas a more “realistic” simulation would require dozens of boards and thousands of squads. But, thanks to ASL’s allegorical approach, all you need for this game is that one, emblematic slice – a fraction of the actual OB and time – that captures the essence of the matter.

Anyway, keeping that in mind when making scenarios is key. ASL’s “drill down detail” means that meticulous “simulations” are too likely to bog in detail.

Thanks for the elaboration, clarifies your intent quite well!

 

[Actionjick]

Right, I too have seen and been puzzled by that “hidden meaning” definition of allegory; I think it’s a bit off.

I prefer Webster’s definition; it’s more precise.

Definition of allegory

1: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence a writer known for his use of allegory also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression The poem is an allegory of love and jealousy.

2: a symbolic representation

Although allegory usually comes through in literature, for example one could say The Scarlet Letter is an allegory about social stigma, we can see it in games too. ASL is a “symbolic representation” of tactical combat. In ASL our “fictional figures” include leaders, squads, and AFVs made of cardboard. Through the rules they express “truths … about human existence.” For example, if you run through open ground, you will likely get mowed down by machine gun fire; but if you must, a good leader can help get the men moving. All of those truths come through in the ASL rules and are “lived” by those fictional characters.

Designers use allegory by focusing on the “symbolic representation.” For example, the original scenario 3, now scenario C, symbolically represents the battle for The Streets of Stalingrad with only one board and about 90 squads whereas a more “realistic” simulation would require dozens of boards and thousands of squads. But, thanks to ASL’s allegorical approach, all you need for this game is that one, emblematic slice – a fraction of the actual OB and time – that captures the essence of the matter.

Anyway, keeping that in mind when making scenarios is key. ASL’s “drill down detail” means that meticulous “simulations” are too likely to bog in detail.

Had the time to read your post again and found it very good! Nicely done!

 

[wrongway149]

I design for the following basic principle:

Put as much ASL as possible (Units, SSRs, ACTION) into the smallest package (number of turns, boards) that can hold it.

 

[Actionjick]

I design for the following basic principle:

Put as much ASL as possible (Units, SSRs, ACTION) into the smallest package (number of turns, boards) that can hold it.

How has your approach to scenario design evolved over the years or is it essentially the same as when you started out?

 

[Actionjick]

I design for the following basic principle:

Put as much ASL as possible (Units, SSRs, ACTION) into the smallest package (number of turns, boards) that can hold it.

Unfortunately this Action doesn't fit into the smallest package anymore.

 

[The Purist]

I've become quite partial to the "Squad Bleeder" scenarios and the "Line in the Sand" mini-campaigns that include "this or that" options. The building blocks of the unit can be almost as much fun as the scenario itself as you can craft different tactics around different choices.

Some may be critical of these scenarios as potentially unbalanced but I enjoy the 'not knowing' everything about the opposition. These scenarios also have a lot of potential for replay before you exhaust the options.

Hopefully we will see more of this sort.

 

[wrongway149]

How has your approach to scenario design evolved over the years or is it essentially the same as when you started out?

I think it has evolved. Like most, at first I tried a lot harder to make the game fit the history really snugly. Now I go for the 'loose' fit. (I understand 'design for effect' much better now.)

 

[Actionjick]

I think it has evolved. Like most, at first I tried a lot harder to make the game fit the history really snugly. Now I go for the 'loose' fit.

Very nicely put. Thanks!

 

[Steven Pleva]

Toys, Options, New!

Toys: I want cool stuff to play with. Usually this means AFVs, but FrF's "Riders on the Storm" has the Germans attacking with wagons.
Options: Not a fan of scripted scenarios. I like more than one path to victory for both sides.
New: A situation this is unique or units used in a novel way. A prime example of both is FrF's "To Ashes" - attacking armor with towed guns. Total brain burner! Also, a cool map setup helps. Sometimes it just takes one SSR to make a scenario. The partisan creation SSR in "Urban Guerillas" makes the scenario special.

Steve

 

[Actionjick]

Toys, Options, New!

Toys: I want cool stuff to play with. Usually this means AFVs, but FrF's "Riders on the Storm" has the Germans attacking with wagons.
Options: Not a fan of scripted scenarios. I like more than one path to victory for both sides.
New: A situation this is unique or units used in a novel way. A prime example of both is FrF's "To Ashes" - attacking armor with towed guns. Total brain burner! Also, a cool map setup helps. Sometimes it just takes one SSR to make a scenario. The partisan creation SSR in "Urban Guerillas" makes the scenario special.

Steve

It does seem to me that if your playing time is limited you would want to have as much cool stuff and novel situations as possible in a scenario. That's what grabbed me in the first place with the early SL scenarios. Demo charges, flamethrowers, assault engineers! Things no other game I had played offered. It was so different, so new and exciting. Much like young love I suppose. ?

 

[Eagle4ty]

I just usually apply the METT-T smell test (yes I know current U.S./NATO(?) doctrine has added a C=Civilians to the end).

• MISSION: Does the current VC requirements meet or interpret the historical conditions correctly? EX: if a unit's mission (the background story) was to punch through an objective, does the VC require them to accomplish that task or at least a secondary objective that would lead to accomplishment of the overall mission? In other words, just because one side or another lost the actual engagement, does the scenario provide for a "type" of victory that the historical counterpart could have accomplished to "win" the contest at least in part.
• ENEMY/EQUIPMENT: Do the sides have what seems to be the proper force structure and assets historically available as well as being able to effectively contest your opponent? That is to say don't load up a defensive force with tons of ROF weapons simply because the historical outcome was a slaughter of the attacking force, nor do completely the opposite and ignore what may have been actual critical assets in the historical engagement just to limit the size of a scenario. EX: If the scenario historical background is representing defending against a large Russian tank attack in late war, don't give me a scenario with two Russian tanks and a handful of defenders. I would be expecting to "relive" the experience of a tank attack, if it ain't there it ain't getting played! I don't care how d____ well balanced your design seemed to be.
• TROOPS: Does the a side have the troops seemingly capable of effectively countering the opposition without relying upon a gimmicky circumstance yet portray the types of units actually present? This may include the Morale and ELR of units as well as the SANs (nothing burns my butt hotter than a bonfire than to see a historical background stating something like "the fight was a confusing affair" and yet see a SAN of 2 for either side). Also (CVP) losses can reflect many circumstances that may be of consideration in the historical contest, is that properly addressed?
• TERRAIN: Does the terrain presented roughly simulate the type of terrain actually encountered historically and does the scenario allow one to utilize that terrain effectively? Incumbent with this is how the terrain is used within a VC role (If the historical objective was to control the high ground or control road junctions - valid historical objectives - don't give me a scenario where one has to have more troops on a board than the opponent! As a designer it shows a lack of research and laziness in design).
• TIME: Does a scenario give you adequate time to achieve your objectives? Probably one of the hardest things to design in a scenario, too little or too much can ruin a good game design. If I believe I have "just about" enough time to hold out or attack to attack to gain that last objective you've made me a believer in your scenario design, win or lose.

 

[Honza]

The subject matter of a scenario is often what interests me. If I am interested in the battle then I will be keen to try the scenario. Another motivator is the OOB. If it is an interesting OOB then I am hooked.