Warmachine and
symmetrical and asymmetrical design
This past month saw an interesting “state of Circle”
discussion by Jaden of the brilliant Druid’s Dice. Party Foul posted a response
that expressed concern over whether the CID was reducing player’s exploration
of their factions and practice with playing the game (I hope I’ve represented your
points fairly). Chain Attack and Muse have discussed burn-out and exhaustion in
the community. I do not think these are unrelated points.
I personally found the CID rapidly took the winds out of my
Warmachine sails, in part because playtesting done properly is a lot of
work, more work than I can commit to, so I was only able to watch. The game started
to feel like it was in constant flux, not just the models, which I can easily
ignore, but the whole game itself. This impression (and I recognize it is
subjective) was because of the Steamroller 2017 review. Reviewing the
Steamroller packet in CID was a good idea, but it presented some problems,
problems which I think are the reasoning behind some of the community flare-ups
that have been occurring frequently over the past year. These flare-ups are not
only about individual or group experiences, they also point to a problem in how
WM/H design and discourse has been developing over the past five years.
Warmachine is a game that struggles with the gap between asymmetrical and symmetrical
game design, and it seems to avoid recognizing its high-denominator nature as a
game.
The following is a long, but I think correct, analysis of
some of WM/H’s core conceits and functions, with suggestions about how it might
be restructured to better fit its points and goals.
Asymmetrical design
vs. symmetrical play
Most people who play games regularly will be familiar with
this concept. Symmetrical games are ones in which the table state and pieces
are identical. Asymmetrical design is when one side or the other, or both, function
differently. If the play is open-information and the turn sequence is clearly
defined, then most of the experience of play can be considered symmetrical. If
the players are working on non-aligned goals (separate goals) or if the players
information loop is randomized and closed, we can consider the play to be asymmetrical.
Chess and Go are the stereotypical symmetrical game in both
design and play. Many gambling games – slots – are the opposite, it’s asymmetrical
in both design and play. Poker is, at low levels, asymmetrically as all get
out, but becomes more symmetrical when you understand the design.
Magic the Gathering is deliberately asymmetrical in design.
That is, some cards are simply better than others. Netrunner, or other LCGs,
are not, they are symmetrical in design. Netrunner’s success as a game is because
it has (or had) tight symmetrical design, but asymmetrical play. However, as
the card pool increased, the symmetry became incomplete, and so the game became
entirely asymmetrical as key deck archetypes began to overwhelm the play space.
Magic’s development is also illustrative here. Originally,
WotC thought rarity would control the asymmetrical nature of the game, using
real world distributing as a kind of force allowance mechanic. It almost
immediately failed, so WotC added the four-card limit. Since the advent of the
internet, rarity is a meaningless restriction for competitive players, to the
point where well-respect and popular sources of new-player advice, like
Talorian Academy recommend that players returning to the game not do anything
but netdeck and buy singles. The idea of opening booster packs is regulated to
the bad idea/waste of money category, and so Magic now exists in a constant
state of unfettered asymmetrical design. The one saving grace is the control of
the turn structure and the relatively low-denominator nature of the game, which
means the game is harder to “quarterback” than others (more on this later).
All of the large miniature games are asymmetrical, and WM/H
is no different. Each army is different, with different abilities, challenges,
and themes. Warmachine is asymmetrical in design, but, I think, aspires to symmetry
play. I think these are features, not bugs. In fact, I think WM/H one of the
best designed games ever. But it does suffer from a problem, and that is, it
aspires to symmetrical play in a high-denominator play environment.
Chess, Go, and Magic are low-denominator games. That is,
there are few to no avenues to winning. The consistent strength of “blue” in
Magic is because you do not win a low-denominator game by scoring points, you
win it by not losing. Hockey and Soccer are low-denominator sports where
penalty minutes are a considerably larger factor in determining victory than
anything else. You win chess by not losing, and so on. (I am aware that Magic
designers have flirted with multiple win conditions, but they’ve consistently backed
away from making them constant…I suspect they realize it would tank the game).
A high-denominator game has either a wide division of points
(American football), a rapid rate of scoring (Basketball), or multiple win
conditions (Legend of the Five Rings or Warmachine). High-denominator games can
be “quarterbacked,” that is an highly skilled player is more important than any
other element – in sports, or in Warmachine, a powerful model that can be
repeated or a powerful caster can quarterback the whole game forward (hence,
Haley2, Asphyxious2, Wormwood, Madrak2, etc).
Now the immediate design problem with WM/H lies in its high-denominator
model of play and its asymmetrical design. It uses five key ways to try to over
come the complexity of the game’s contrasting design:
1.
Limit player input
2.
Points
3.
Field Allowance
4.
Force Composition
5.
Enforced Play Experience
First, WM/H limits player input into the design. Players can
choose a model, but they cannot modify the model. Some games, like Infinity or
Heavy Gear, present a range of options available to a model, which still
controls player input. Warhammer, of course, allows for greater player input,
with Wargear rules. WM/H forces you to play the models as they are. You play
their warcasters/locks, not your own. You or I, as players, do not create
models and do not interact with the game in that way. This is a massively
effective way to control balance and gatekeeps all the subsequence tools.
Second, WM/H uses points to present the relative difference in
asymmetrical design. This is a commonplace system, and the source of much grief
and debate. There are probably systemic or intrinsic problems with using a
points system, but WM/H is fairly solid in its use of points in Mk3. (it is
possible that warbeasts might be overcosted, a subject that has repeated come
back over the past year).
Third, field allowance limits how many of the point-costed
pieces we can use. This is a limiting effect, like hand-size or deck-limits.
Like points, it seems commonplace. The origins of FA in WM/H lie in the
original skirmish game of 2002-2003, and it has suffered from growing pains
ever since the game changed from a skirmish game to a war/platoon game. The FA
model has never been questioned and overhauled and seems sacrosanct. It is a problem
that has never been dealt with and a problem of both community and company. I
do think FA is perfectly defensible, but it is largely unevaluated or uncontrolled
as a tool.
Fourth, we have the Force Composition rules of WM/H. The
game uses warjack points to require you to play jacks/beasts. Instead of
altering FA, MK2 and 3 ask you to please play this way, and creates a kind of
passive aggressive requirement to play a certain number of those pieces. The next
level of the FC in WM/H are theme lists, which are theoretically optional.
Lastly, WM/H next tries to force you to play in specific
ways, which we can call “Enforced Play Experience.” This is where we see the
desire for symmetrical play come into the clearest light. Simply put, scenario design
for WM/H seems obsessed with the idea of symmetrical play – when there are asymmetrical
win conditions. This paradox is unavoidable. The presentation of scenarios constantly
reinforces the “both players do the same thing” facet of the game. Steamroller
2016 was not much different than the scenarios in the Prime/Primal rulebook. In
fact, one might argue that some of the core scenarios were better than some of
those included in the 2016 packet. Steamroller 2017 made small changes, but
seemed to try to narrow the scenario route of victory and so further enforces
the “play the game this way” that started this funnel (limit player input) and
then deposits us into a game of WM/H. The inclusion of terrain placement
instructions further confirms the role the document plays in telling us how to
play the game. Now, I know there is nothing preventing us from building new
warcasters or designing new scenarios, but for a sizable and vocal part of the
WM/H community, these five elements combine to make the game experience what it
is.
How do we evaluate these tools?
Ultimately, through intuition and play experience. Key problems
in Warmachine are not the point system or the FA system. Those can be refined
and work well. CID is likely a good engagement tool on that topic. Field
allowance is not a critical problem, although if diversity of play pieces is to
be valued, and the if the game is intended to be primarily about War jacks/beasts
you could limit infantry to an FA of one or two, forcing diversity. The main problems are force composition and
Steamroller.
Force compositions, theme forces, and how they compromise
the asymmetrical/symmetrical design paradigm
Force composition, at base, is a kind of symmetrical design
goal, if it is applied across all armies. Some of the balance issues of asymmetrical
army choices can be overcome by proscribing a certain number of points be
assigned to certain categories. Long time, or older 40K players will recognize
this concept clearly. In some card games, like Magic, Mana creates a kind of
force composition requirement. Historically, Warmachine has steered clear of
large scale force composition. Since MK2, the game has uses Warcaster/lock
points to encourage/enforce the core conceit of the game –magicians marshalling
magical machines or monstrosities. However, the fact that such points are
always presented as extra means and the points vary in ways that are not always
obvious means the points create asymmetry at the point of both list design and
table top play, which means they counter-act the symmetrical element of force composition.
That said, if the point system is tight enough (its close, but I think the
repeated concern over warbeast points means the passive-aggressive design of
Warcaster/lock bonus points seems to identify an apparent problem in point
costing).
The next level of force composition in WM/H is the theme
list. I want to stress that the approach taken by Privateer Press is a sort of
carrot-approach. Rather than forcing players to use theme lists, they’re
optional and designed to encourage players to evoke the narrative and setting
of the game. In that regard, they are commendable. Theme lists further
accentuate the design of force composition by having players sacrifice some
facet of the army, limiting their choices, to access some further advantage. Again,
this is a commendable goal.
But both goals are compromised in MK3 because the theme
lists all default to offering free points. The theme lists take a feature of
the game which is supposed to counter the asymmetrical nature of the armies
(point system) and then reduces it to nothing, further overriding the next
limitation, field allowance. Field allowance is only a restriction in a maximum
point environment, that is there is a threshold that cannot be crossed. But the
threshold of an theme list + warcaster/lock points is highly variable. Players
can easily squeeze a maximum number of additional points as a priority,
allowing them to make the symmetrical tool of point costs and FAs into asymmetrical
ways to disrupt the game. In competitive environments where Steamroller is used
widely, the symmetry of the scenarios means theme lists exacerbate the problems
inherent in trying to make high-denominator games symmetrical.
And that leads us to:
Steamroller, symmetrical goals, and repetition of elements.
IF you watch the great short animated film Privateer Press put
up, you’d get the impression that WM/H is a dynamic game of characters and cool
battle moments. If you read Prime/Primal Mk3 or the Steamroller document, you
would get the sense that all Warmachine games consist of fighting over circles
and rectangles. The consistency of the Steamroller document has played a role
in the expansion of Warmachine in the past five years, but the current
iterations, 2016 to 2017 suggest a settling in of a problem, which is that
Steamroller runs counter to the dynamic vision of the game.
Steamroller appears to accept symmetry as the primary value
in competitive environments, but even so, the lack of imagination in the scenario
design is simply unforgivable. Players do the same thing in eight different
ways. The way deployment functions as most often lining up along the maximum
line and then the first turn almost always being moving forward as quickly as
possible is endemic. I realize I am simplifying deployment and the first turn,
but having watched, listened to, or played hundreds of games over the past
one-and-a-half decades, it seems to be the way play is commonly done. This repetitiveness
combines with the problems of FA, FC, and enforced play to mean quarterbacking
is still the primary way to win games.
These problems will not be unique to WM/H, and we can ask
how other games deal with these problems. Rather than run about an compare WM/H
to other games, we might make the following suggestions:
First, asymmetrical scenarios would be a good start. Giving
each side a different set of scenario goals would be a good start. They could
even be faction specific and enhance the games setting. Or perhaps the scenario
has attack and defender goals. Perhaps there is an element that penalizes both
sides (heavy rain, darkness, disease, a forest fire).
Second, increase the terrain demands players face or enhance
the rules. A chariot pathfinding its way around the board is odd, and frankly,
terrain often offers little cover. Enhancing rules for hills and blocking line
of sight would be good.
Third, redesign the theme lists to eliminate the following
features: free models/points, and abilities that penalize other players. Ravens
of War is interesting, but the removal of the opponents AD is troublesome.
Instead, giving Legions players more AD (choose a unit to gain advance
deployment) would be flavorful and dynamic, presenting a tactical problem
instead of a strategic disadvantage to the other player. Use theme lists to augment
with restriction – the way the minions theme augments the Gatorman Posse is a
good starting point.
Fourth, remove loss on clock. Keep the deathclock, but go to
assassination, attrition, and scenario as victory conditions. The game ends
when one player runs out of time, another victory condition occurs, or the TO insists the round has to end. Then run through victory conditions or
some other solution. Combined with compelling scenario goals, then the clock or
play-delay shouldn’t be a problem. The goal is to reduce the high-denominators from four to three.
I have more radical ideas for the game, but they seem beyond
the scope of this already long (and tiresome?) essay.
CODA: a comment on community
I’ve noticed a trend in the community online towards
negative memeing, git good, and, generally, inflammatory shitposting. If you
want people to play your game, maybe all the negative framing of the community
is a bad idea? Maybe the rambling click bait of “worst casters” and podcasts
where people just “talk” about WM/H is a feedback loop of stasis? The best
episodes of every podcast are the ones where they are talking about playing the
game. Chain Attack is best when its doing battle reports or doing progression
dojo, not chatting about broad categories (except the health episodes!). Party
Foul explains tactics so well, and then wastes time on general complaining. Mr.
Malorian’s battle reports are inspiring, but the OTTs don’t make me want to
introduce new players to your content. Druid’s Dice’s ranking models on a
subjective scale will never be as helpful as running through the scenarios and
explaining your approach to them. We have a choice about how we present our
role as players to both Privateer Press and non-players. As Josh Wheeler
argued, be the change you want to be/do/(how did he rephrase that cliché?)
The problems of Warmachine/Hordes lie in a combination of
community reception and the internal tension of the asymmetrical design
structure yoked to a symmetrical play structure. The community issue is beyond
the control of Privateer Press, though the CID is a smart move to help channel
it into a useful vehicle for change. The internal tension presents a greater
challenge. Altering one or the other would likely reduce the “feedback” in
playing the game and make the game less prone to repetitive quarterbacking
strategies. Removing asymmetrical design would destroy the flavor and texture
of the game, and frankly, is impossible. Therefore, altering the symmetrical
play structure is the better way to try to achieve an even better game.
No comments:
Post a Comment