Designing a game, any game, that is enjoyable to a broad cross-section of people is a challenge. You have to make people think without making them frustrated, or bored. You have to present a series of possibilities rather than a predefined path to victory. And you should make the game a chameleon that changes complexion each time it's played. It should be believable in its premise, no matter how ludicrous the premise is. Silicon Valley comes to mind... And finally, it should be fair. The player has to have a chance to win.
I think that TPGII offers the designer a chance to accomplish all of those goals, limited as its options are. Witness the brilliant scenarios and campaigns that have been posted to these pages over the years.
And I feel like I am just now, after maybe three years of playing with the editor, playing your scenarios, making mistakes and taking notes, starting to come into my own on the design end. So here's what currently goes through my noodle when I sit down to design a scenario - then I'll talk a bit about campaigns.
I think of these things in this order: Game Length, Map, Premise, Units, Details.
Game Length:
I think it's important to know before you start whether you're setting out to design a small set piece set-up on an island, or The Battle For Boston. When I designed that scenario, which was the first one I ever did, it was an exercise in learning how the editor worked. I knew I wanted a really detailed map that resembled Boston. What I didn't know was how long a game on a map that complicated takes... I found out. That game took months of playtesting to get right. And aside from learning all about the editor by doing it, the most important thing I learned was to think of length first, and then think about the map. Then adjust the size of the map to the length of the game. It makes no sense to me to play a small, short game on a huge map, or a long overly reinforced game on a tiny map.
The Map
The more games I design, the more I like the terrain to be as close to possible as it would be found in nature. Nature made the maps that all wars have been fought over. Man has changed the terrain somewhat, and that is natural too. Cities can spring up anywhere, but they usually spring up for a reason which is reflected in the immediate and surrounding area. A city is a port, or trading center, or a crossroads, etc. I think the map should reflect that. Farmland, swampland, deserts and forests also happen for reasons, and the map should reflect those too. The detail of the map, the reasons for where things are, lead directly to the Premise of the conflict.
As an aside here, before I get into that, a word or two on how I design maps. One of two ways: Either I know what it's supposed to look like, and do my best with the editor to make it so, like in Boston, or in any of the historical scenarios, or I just size it to what I think is appropriate for the game length and consider the editor my canvas and start playing. If the game is not a preconceived notion at this point, then I start fooling around. I build hills, rivers, swamps, beaches, desert, forests, kinda like throwing paint at a canvas. Then I look at what I have, and come up with where I think people would live, and what they might fight over. Then I move on to the Premise, and start placing cities and VPs and fine tuning the flora...
The Premise
The reason for war. There has to be one. And it has to be believable to the person looking at your map. You have to give the player a reason to fight (play), whether that reason is very silly or very serious, it has to be there. I like a game where I know exactly why I'm playing. It make no difference to me whether I'm trying to invade Italy during WWII, capture a dam in some made-up place, liberate Fenway Park (unreleased, part of the Campaign for Boston), rescue the Count's daughter from Sir Hosehead...hmmm...there's an idea.... I like purpose. For any scenario. Purpose makes accomplishment feel good.
I'm the first to admit that in my scenarios, sometimes the premise for the scenario is a little unreal. Wouldn't happen in real life armed conflicts. But, the Premise gives the scenario a personality. An originality. This reminds me of Karaoke, which I didn't think was a very good scenario, but the premise was funny... In that scenario, I had started out to design an island situation that involved control of bridges in the middle of a small map...I strayed...bigtime.
Anyway, a good story, backed up by a good map leads right into the most important part of the game:
Units
How and where do you start? And with what? A lot of this goes through my head as I make the map. This is where the reinforcement schedule gets major consideration. But the conflict usually dictates that. Once you're set on what the game is about, you have the victory conditions in mind, and picking units to play a fair game is easy. You have the map, you have the story, you only have to really decide on how much when. So I fall back again on what would be realisitic. A tank drop behind enemy lines of 13 ETs is not realistic. Well...I take that back. Maybe your story included that... This is when you actually set up the balance and tempo of the game.
These are the variables that the player, and Earl, can work with. This is where both can get creative. Or not. You can do set-piece and let the combatants get creative with what you give them. All depends on ideas one and two presented here. Up to you. Both work just fine when used properly. And by properly, I mean that you, as the designer, enable both sides access to what you think they should, or might, or could really use, to accomplish the Premise, without going over or underboard. Underboard, new word.
Details
So, I've got my map, my story, my units all plotted out in the reinforcement schedule, and it's a sunny day. Hmmm... Mother nature again... I tend to include weather based on where the scenario takes place. In Boston, I gave a specific date and based the weather around that, which was pretty accurate. If the scenario takes place in somewhere I made up, I'll usually tell the player in the description where it is and will base the weather on its locale. I think the weather variable is very important to the realism of any wargame. It is as much a part of your strategy as moving your tanks. You have to use it.
Other variables include off-shore bombardments and airplane flight distance. I only include off-shore bombardments if that could have happened. I mean, it's conceivable that somebody would include them in a game that was totally landlocked and call them some kind of super-intelligent artillery...but what's the point. And they're overuse is a common mistake I've found in some scenarios I've played. Get pounded, quit, hope they miss the next time. Nope. Most often not a next time. Offshore artillery should not decimate you on the first turn. Don't go there.
Airplane flight distance is a bit of a pet-peeve of mine. Don't design a map with the intention of letting planes move to other airports and then forget to change the distance setting so they can actually reach them. Especially in random scenarios where you don't know who's going to be where when. I'm not saying that all airports should be reachable, but I am saying keep in mind the possible situations when you are limiting the player by having him wind up in an unwinnable situation in that regard.
So that's what goes through my mind. So far. I'm learning lots and enjoying every bit. Keep writing, keep making me think, keep making me miss Red Sox games even though they're on the TV as I play.
And I'll keep writing... I have to incorporate Capn' Kev's suggestions into my first campaign, but, then it will be out in bookstores everywhere. And I'm really thinking about the map for the next Ourgame... I have some ideas...and I'm not done playing this one and won't be for some time....work, work, play, play, work, etc....
Speak soon,
Private "I'd Walk A Mile In Your Shadow (But It's Too Goddam Dark)" Elmer "Stinky" McClure