Saturday, November 12, 2011

First pics from the Con Game

US players to left planning their strategy.

The beginning of the US demise.
Basically, the scenario was designed too historically accurate and I hadn't adjusted the victory conditions enough to help the US out a bit. The 43rd Armored Division was lost, just like in real life. 2 of those lost because I forgot the arty rule that it only hits full AFVs on 6. By the end the German players had a better grasp of the game than me. Which is odd, 'cause I thought I had it down.

Also lack of clarity on spotting, LOS, how units are targeted, etc.

Also, it took a looooong time to get through the turns because some of the commanders were getting multiple rolls, a lot to think about for all the players, a lot of maneuvering, ??? Will have to look into it.

US player morale suffered greatly as game wore on and they just couldn't move beyond the town.

We got 3 turns in out of 8. Unfortunately, it soured me on scenario design. Unfortunately, because I would like to design more for the 12th AD. Soured me just cause it's tons of work that needs more work. Basically, I'll get over it.

Now, there were three games that I heard yelling (excited, cheerful, happy) coming from tables. In the past, I've played in two of the GMs games that were running these happy places. And, they're both good GMs. Says a lot. One ruleset is well tested and one is a major modified Rapid Fire. The other was Ambush Alley/Force on Force. Don't know the GM but both his games have generated shout and hollers.

Now, I've heard grumbling about some other games either from the GMs or players. Not terrible, just that the games didn't go well, scenario wasn't up to snuff, benign. But still not excitement and hooting and hollering. So, I'm not alone.

This leads me to a few quick thoughts - which I shouldn't be doing at this hour:
  • Design a smaller scenario or use a smaller scenario
  • Do like Jerry and Ed and design a small one and have two playings of the scenario happening at the same table. And the games last short enough that each player takes command of each commander in 3 playings of the game. For example, in their game there were 2 Unions Commanders and 1 Confederate. Basically, each player would play one command and then when the game was done, they would move to the next command. They had two playings just to get more players in. Really, it's supposed to be a big game. Take 4 hours. It appeared they had just a small part of a scenario or a well designed small one.
  • People suggested letting everyone have at least one command every turn with one possibility of doing something. (I'm not sure this is a problem because I allowed mulligans, so there weren't many first time failures.)
  • They also suggested I just let everyone have their turn and that's it. No friction - Hmmm. But it would limit the number of turns someone can do something. I could also limit the number of actions. Or, I believe Hail Caesar and Black Powder have changed the command structure. I should buy them just for this reason.

I'll still have to think about this. One thing I do wish: that I could get out there and do another one quickly to keep up the momentum and to keep growing and improving what I'm learning. 'Cause I think I like GMing more than playing.

1 comment:

  1. My advice after running many games at conventions:

    Playtest the game at least three times before the Con. Never make a change without playtesting it first.