"Friction vs Fiction": Discuss!

[The Other Dave]

This doesn't really go with any particular game, so I put it in here in the non-gaming section even though it's about gaming. Such is life!

Anyway, I just finished reading a good (if slightly wordy) blog post over at Too Fat Lardies that pretty much summarizes a lot of my feelings about wargames rules, and why I'm so in love with, say, Epic while so lukewarm about (the rules of) Dropzone Commander, and that's the concept of battlefield friction, fog of war, whatever you want to call it, but the basic idea that a commander will never be able to ensure that the troops under his command actually do exactly what he wants them to do. I've talked about this idea with a lot of you, but wanted to share the blog post and maybe ask some questions.

Would you guys agree with the idea he raises, that some not-insignificant number of gamers are actively opposed to anything that takes away their ability to reliably control their little mans, or is it maybe just historical accident, that a Certain Ruleset is Extremely Popular, and That Ruleset doesn't involve friction in any meaningful way, so most gamers just aren't used to (or aren't even really aware of) the concept? I realize I may be a bit unusual, in our group at least, in my lurve of rules for friction, so I thought it might be neat to see what all you fellas think about the ideas raised in the linked post.

[AndrewGPaul]

I'm assuming you mean 40k; if so, just come out and say so. The euphemisms just get in the way.

The real culprits when it comes to promoting the idea of "perfect control" aren't GW games, it's Warmachine and Malifaux. When the entire game revolves around CCG-like combos, you can't have anything interfere with your overly complex plan, so goodbye C3 and morale rules. That and nerds overestimating the effect of hard, crunchy stuff and underestimating the human element.

Although, there's a thread on Warseer where the "Chaos Champions" (Chaos Space Marines) and "Instinctive Behaviour" (Tyranids) rules are getting a bashing, with a couple of people complaining that any rule which removes player control of a unit is a bad thing, and one poster suggesting that more armies should have "They Shall Know No Fear" - essentially suggesting that you should throw away the Morale section of the rulebook because losing a unit for any reason other than having them ground down to the last model is "wrong".

[jehan-reznor]

It really depends on the setting IMHO, in a high tech setting the fog of war should be as good as non-existent or be a part of a specific scenario (jamming, surveillance Satellite breakdown and so on). The more you go back in time with battle systems the more the fog of war becomes a thing and the more difficult it becomes to control your army (IMHO)

[The Other Dave]

I'm assuming you mean 40k; if so, just come out and say so. The euphemisms just get in the way.

I was trying to be cute, sorry. The people on the board I know in "real life" will vouch for the fact that I'm not shy about naming names.

But yeah, you're right in that there are a lot of wargames that let you have all kinds of godlike control over your duders. And I mean, Warmachine and Malifaux are certainly fun, and the "CCG combo" effect is a big part of their draw, and I can see it. I guess that gets to the tension between "realism" and "cinematics" that the blog post touches on.

[The Other Dave]

It really depends on the setting IMHO, in a high tech setting the fog of war should be as good as non-existent or be a part of a specific scenario (jamming, surveillance Satellite breakdown and so on). The more you go back in time with battle systems the more the fog of war becomes a thing and the more difficult it becomes to control your army (IMHO)

Hmm. I really don't think I buy this argument, sorry. Technology doesn't magically prevent human error, as all the tales of friendly fire accidents, blowing up wedding parties and the like in modern conflicts will attest to.

[Primarch]

Hmm, while I do think Malifaux is a great game for other reasons, I can see the point that you never have to worry about minis not doing what they are told. (Though a lot of the mechanics involve you testing to see if you can activate their abilities.

Personally I do like friction when done right. Bolt Action does this with a pinning system similar to Epic and the random activation sequence means you can't rely on combined actions to destroy enemy formations. Black Powder and it's siblings make you check against a commander's skill everytime you want a unit to do anything. Shooting can also force units to fall back or be unable to activate in it's own phase.

Friction when done wrong is frustrating. 40K doesn't apply much, but the old Rage rules and the Nid/Chaos rules AGP mentioned are about it. The Nid rules would be ok if other armies had any kind of restrictions on them, but applied in isolation... and some of them are quite harsh. There is one result on the chart that leads to your models eating each other! The last edition did a much better job.

[ashmie]

As an Orc player and a keen roleplayer I'm a big fan of what I understand you mean as fog of war. I like the unexpected to happen in a game whether it's to my side or the opponents. If both players are on board with the anything could happen outlook then this can be a lot of fun. Random charts and rules for morale are always interesting for me. If both players aren't up for such randomness it can be hard to get harmony in a game, especially if a player generally cares about their army winning.
I usually lose all my games as I don't plan my moves ahead and leave a lot up to what happens when the battle unfolds. This is cathatic for me, especially as so much of life can be over micro organised and planned, especially in Japan, it's good to kick back and see what random chaos occurs.
So naturally a player who has thought out their list well and has some strong tactics will smash my army sufficiently. I was really excited for Sundays game as we were going to try something pretty random with Hail Caesar and fantasy. I think it would have been a good game. Hopefully next time.
Thanks for sparking my interest TOD, good topic!

[Lovejoy]

I'm all for this kind of thing, whether we call it fog of war or friction. I like rules which take some of the control away. Not to a ridiculously random extent, otherwise there'd be no point in playing - but a little unpredictability and realism helps. Instead of whining, some of these tournament types (no one in our community) should see it as a challenge to use a system where they have to plan ahead and mitigate the element of chance. Seems like a opportunity for developing your tactical acumen, to me.
Or something.
There are probably only two I use which make use of such ideas, but that they have held my attention and are among the best rulesets I've ever played speaks volumes. And they are both Warlord, Bolt Action and Black Powder. I would love for GW to take note and try something different along these lines, but it won't happen.

[jehan-reznor]

It really depends on the setting IMHO, in a high tech setting the fog of war should be as good as non-existent or be a part of a specific scenario (jamming, surveillance Satellite breakdown and so on). The more you go back in time with battle systems the more the fog of war becomes a thing and the more difficult it becomes to control your army (IMHO)

Hmm. I really don't think I buy this argument, sorry. Technology doesn't magically prevent human error, as all the tales of friendly fire accidents, blowing up wedding parties and the like in modern conflicts will attest to.

What i am saying is that the chance of this will occurring will higher as technology decreases, in most current miniature wargames it doesn't take battlefield intelligence in account and the closest to mishap is with scatter of indirect fire (in 40K) some other games take friendly fire in account.

What i never liked in 40K is/was is that you are not allowed to target your own people who are in close combat, from all the 40K stories is that imperial commanders or Chaos lord don't give a crap about their infantry, so you should be able to bombard an enemy even do they are in close combat with expendable troops

[YellowStreak]

i'm a fan of the concept, probably part of the reason I like the Bolt Action rules so much (and blood bowl - which although it's not 'fog of war', the failure/turnover mechanic results in a similar type of unpredictability).

The Song of Drums and Shakos style rule where you can play it safe and do very little in a turn (1 action per figure) or gamble and try for multiple actions but risk a 'turnover' is also a mechanic I really like - the tactical tradeoff.