tbeard1999: Ok, well it seemed like a good enough explanation to me. Perhaps since you are a game designer you can see other possible explanations that I can't and I could see how that could make your expectations higher.
I re-read my reply and it comes off more judgmental than I really intended. I meant to agree that creating a mighty rules tome is a lot of hard work, but that it is possible to provide adequate "ergonomics" -- index, proofreading, robust systems, etc.
Yeah, this would have all been nice to see in T5. In particular the "designer's notes". I know that there are some in T5, but when I was working in the beta, I don't know how many times I said: "If someone can just explain to me why this rule is this way, then perhaps I could agree with it." And virtually never got any kind of answer. Even when I did, it was usually guesses by other people who didn't actually know.
It truly perplexes me that so many designers refuse to simply
explain why they did what they did. In this day and age, there's really no excuse. FFT has had a free Yahoo group for over a decade with hundreds of members. We always respond to "why did you do this" questions from our players. And frankly, that level of accountability makes us far more thoughtful when we create new versions.
So I applaud your work and wish I liked that kind of game enough that I could get it and enjoy your thoroughness. Meanwhile I guess I'll get back to hammering out the kinks in T5.
Thanks for the kind words. On the off chance that someone with influence might read this, here's how we "commented" FFT3.
A. Traditional designer's notes explain "big picture" things, as well as provide a historical account of how FFT developed.
"The primary motivation for designing FFT3 arose out of dissatisfaction with the time required to play other modern games. Ty wanted to play a modern miniatures game, but couldn't stand the thought of spending an hour (or more) to play a single game turn.
He wanted something fast. Real fast. He wanted a game that he really could play in 10 minutes per game turn. We regularly attain that level of speed in our games and even our slowest games do not average more than about 20 minutes per turn. We think that the essence of modern mechanized warfare is speed. The great commanders like Rommel, Guderian or Patton, had the ability to react quickly and get things done quickly. The incompetents didn't. We don't think that a game that requires an hour to play a single turn is “realistic” in any sense of the word. Nor is it much fun....
B. Footnotes explain individual rules, comment on alternatives, etc. In FFT3, there are 112 footnotes , which act as commentary for specific rules. The core rules are about 212 pages (of 458 pages), we average 1 footnote per 2 pages. Here are some representative samples:
13 The increased speed and reduced time of exposure is assumed to roughly compensate for the reduced ability of the crew to spot threats. Besides, helicopters are already pretty fragile in the game, and a further penalty made them too much so.
18 The edge of cover is not a literal edge. Rather it's the point at which the cover is dense enough to seriously obstruct line of sight. In the real world, the terrain feature may extend significantly beyond the edge represented in the game. When designing scenarios based on real maps, players should bear in mind that the map will tend to over-state the size of cover compared with the game.
26 It is patently impossible to write detailed rules for all possible types of linear terrain features. We considered making a linear obstacle classification system and leaving scenario designers to fit them to their terrain features, but decided we preferred to give players more guidance on how to treat common features. If these don't fit the characteristics of the terrain for your particular historical scenario, customize them or make up your own.
51 We suggest the use of a ‘correct' scatter die (not GW-style). To make one, take a 6-sided die and draw an arrow on each face parallel to the die edge (not diagonally). If your artwork is a little crooked, it doesn't matter, direction is always read as parallel to the die edge. That way a straight edge can be laid alongside the die to measure the distance along the direction if needed.
*****
C. Examples explain every major combat and movement rule. Samples:
For example, an M4A1 Sherman II is advancing in its Movement Phase down a road through heavy woods that has a destroyed Pz.IVF2 stand 4˝ ahead blocking it. To move 6˝ down the road the Sherman would pay 7 movement points: 3 movement points for the 6˝ of road, plus an extra 4 movement points for the extra 2˝ through the heavy woods to pass the blocking Pz.IV.
For example, a Warrior IFV with a movement of 10t moves 2˝ in open. A friendly infantry stand moves 2˝ into contact with the Warrior. The Warrior and infantry stand both spend 2 movement points to embark the infantry stand. At this point, the Warrior has 6 movement points remaining and moves 6˝ in the open terrain.
D. Finally, we included an executive summary at the beginning of each major rules chapter. Example (Chapter 12, Fire Combat, which is 6 pages long):
12.1 Executive Summary
• A Vehicle can move and fire its guns. If it has no stabilization, it can move ½ its movement and still fire. If it has stabilized guns it can move its full movement and still fire. This applies to anti-vehicle fire, direct area fire, and indirect area fire. A vehicle may always make anti-infantry attacks, no matter how far it moved.
• A stand cannot move and fire 1st generation missiles in the same turn. A stand can move ½ its movement and still fire 2nd generation or 3rd generation missiles.
• A stand that can fire but chooses not to may take a hold fire marker, which lets the stand fire in the next enemy Fire Phase.
• A stand that can fire and that didn't move may take an overwatch marker, which lets it fire almost anytime in the enemy turn or even during its next Movement Phase. It can also “shoot and scoot” if armed with a gun or 3rd generation missile. A stand with advanced stabilization (“ss” on the data chart) can move ½ its movement and get an overwatch marker.
• A target stand can turn to face an enemy stand that moves from the target stand's front to its flank before the enemy stand gets a shot. It can pivot like this once per Fire Phase.
In my opinion, this is how you properly annotate a complex ruleset. We've found that players really like understanding why we made the choices we did. It also reassures them that we put the work in; that we carefully thought through the rules. I humbly submit that T5 could benefit from a similar approach...
