WaterRabbit
Member
I agree with 'Design for Effect'. ASL scenarios are defined by how interesting they are to play and not by their historical accuracy.
I have played many DYO scenarios that were more interesting than the "historically designed" ones.
Also if Mark had paid attention to his own interview with John Hill he might be singing a slightly different tune here. None of the original ASL scenarios approach any degree of historical accuracy. The setup and aftermath are complete fluff text. I guess that John Hill must have been ‘lazy’ as well.
If someone designs a fun, interesting, and balanced scenario and retrofits it to a ‘particular action’ does that make it less enjoyable than a designer that painstakingly researches a particular action an chooses exact forces down to the half-squad and draws a map that is accurate to each tree?
Chances are much higher that the historical approach will produce a dull scenario that few people with play twice. Frankly almost all of the Pegasus Bridge scenarios fall into this category.
‘Historical research’ can be done by any idiot with a reference library and the ability to read. The hard part is to create fun, interesting, and balanced scenarios that get several hundred replays posted. In this respect, historical designers seem to have trouble thinking outside the box.
PROLOGUE
One ought to find something that really interests them and gets their creative juices flowing.
PRODUCTION
Did you enjoy playing you own scenario? Did your testers? Is it balanced (i.e. did you put it in front of players that really tried to break it)?
POST-PRODUCTION
Humility? Bah. Toot your own horn and tell everyone this is the best thing since Red Barricades. Get as many people as possible fired up over it and get your scenario played, debated, analyzed, and criticized. Build up the buzz in the community and bribe TDs to get it on this year’s play list -- better yet get a Replay in one of the Annuals. That is the only way you will know if your design was a success – people play it and talk about it.
Case in point, has anyone besides Mark played any of his scenarios? Buckeyes! for example, has a pathetic number of reported results for how long it has been published. I have yet to hear anyone even suggest a single scenario out of that pack for a game. No analysis, debate, or criticism of it either. So this could be the proverbial gem in the rough or it could be complete dog excrement, who knows. Either way, up to this point it looks like a flop, so people really out to be skeptical on any advice Mark might have about scenario design. He does make some pretty play aids.
I have played many DYO scenarios that were more interesting than the "historically designed" ones.
Also if Mark had paid attention to his own interview with John Hill he might be singing a slightly different tune here. None of the original ASL scenarios approach any degree of historical accuracy. The setup and aftermath are complete fluff text. I guess that John Hill must have been ‘lazy’ as well.
If someone designs a fun, interesting, and balanced scenario and retrofits it to a ‘particular action’ does that make it less enjoyable than a designer that painstakingly researches a particular action an chooses exact forces down to the half-squad and draws a map that is accurate to each tree?
Chances are much higher that the historical approach will produce a dull scenario that few people with play twice. Frankly almost all of the Pegasus Bridge scenarios fall into this category.
‘Historical research’ can be done by any idiot with a reference library and the ability to read. The hard part is to create fun, interesting, and balanced scenarios that get several hundred replays posted. In this respect, historical designers seem to have trouble thinking outside the box.
This looks like a recipe for a dull scenario to me.Robin said:PROLOGUE
- One ought to make some historical research.
- One ought to try to find as much historical data as possible (whithin the time and the reasonable ressources one has in reach).
- Choice of units, terrain, VCs, should be in tune with the historical situation he tries to depict.
DEVELOPEMENT
- Common sense and playtesting must guide some adaptation of the project, so there is no aberration (historical or about the game mechanics). SSRs can be created to adjust things. VCs can be tweaked.
- Playtesting should guide other adaptations, to make the scenario the most balanced and the most fun possible.
PRODUCTION
- Presenting the result, one should have the humility not to consider his work as a perfect simulation, but one should be proud enough to offer his work as something he tried to make the best whith what he could - balancing fun and historicity.
PROLOGUE
One ought to find something that really interests them and gets their creative juices flowing.
PRODUCTION
Did you enjoy playing you own scenario? Did your testers? Is it balanced (i.e. did you put it in front of players that really tried to break it)?
POST-PRODUCTION
Humility? Bah. Toot your own horn and tell everyone this is the best thing since Red Barricades. Get as many people as possible fired up over it and get your scenario played, debated, analyzed, and criticized. Build up the buzz in the community and bribe TDs to get it on this year’s play list -- better yet get a Replay in one of the Annuals. That is the only way you will know if your design was a success – people play it and talk about it.
Case in point, has anyone besides Mark played any of his scenarios? Buckeyes! for example, has a pathetic number of reported results for how long it has been published. I have yet to hear anyone even suggest a single scenario out of that pack for a game. No analysis, debate, or criticism of it either. So this could be the proverbial gem in the rough or it could be complete dog excrement, who knows. Either way, up to this point it looks like a flop, so people really out to be skeptical on any advice Mark might have about scenario design. He does make some pretty play aids.