+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: good scenario design (/showthread.php?tid=1042)
good scenario design - t1M0t8yk - 01-29-2015
I am a PG noob, although a very experienced wargamer, including many other tactical systems. I think an interesting topic for discussion is what distinguishes a well-designed scenario from one that is not well-designed. I searched the PG forums and didn't find much discussion about this. I acknowledge this could be because of my own limited capacity for conducting an effective search; if so, I welcome responses that point to other threads about good scenario design.
Hopefully though this is a fairly fresh topic. The PG-HQ database is great, and if accurate indicates what people like. Certainly though a real discussion beats data mining; after all, people often don't indicate in the database *why* they like a certain scenario.
What do you think are features of well-designed PG scenarios? What are examples of scenarios you consider well-designed, and why? Which PG designers do you think are the best? Which PG modules or books do you think have the highest proportion of well-designed scenarios?
RE: good scenario design - Hugmenot - 01-29-2015
While I do not qualify as to say whether a scenario is well-designed or not, I do have preferences:
I like scenarios in which both sides have a reasonable chance at victory. I am not asking for a perfect balance (an impossibility with randomly selected leaders), just that reasonable play on both sides will not always lead to one side winning the scenario. The totally unbalanced scenarios are becoming much more rare and the designers and developers are to be thanked for that.
In general, I prefer scenarios with multiple objectives over those with victory points, especially if objectives are written in such a way that trying to meet one will make it more difficult to meet another.
I love scenarios with reinforcements, even more so if the reinforcements arrive on a die-roll. The die roll adds to the uncertainty.
I prefer scenarios which offer multiple significantly different strategies for the attacker (and defender if possible).
I like scenarios which include oddball units or scenario special rules.
I generally prefer scenarios in which the attacker enters the board or start far enough from the defender that the defender can react before contact is made.
I like scenarios which duration forces the attackers into a strategy other than a methodical low-risk advance. I want a significant element of risk.
RE: good scenario design - Shad - 01-29-2015
Hugmenot covered a lot of good bases already. My additions:
- I like scenarios that reward competent use of combined arms.
- I like scenarios that manage feature asymmetric forces because it puts players in very different mindsets
- I enjoy weather, particularly changing weather, in my scenarios
- I really enjoy scenarios that have more than one crescendo to the action. A continuous slugging contest bores me but multiple sequential waves of action with maneuvering and recovery in between is awesome.
- Lastly, I enjoy scenarios that take me to places, times, or people that I otherwise would not know... PG is great at featuring obscure conflicts and belligerents. These scenarios always leave me browsing Wikipedia or Amazon for further info.
RE: good scenario design - t1M0t8yk - 01-30-2015
I'll be on the road with limited ability to post until Sunday, so this is my best chance to chime in.
I think good game and scenario design arguably boils down to a very simple question: does it create interesting decisions? Hugmenot and Shad are both on to that with the points they've made. One of Hugmenot's best points was that a good scenario has a sense of urgency. Tough decisions usually are a consequence.
One of Shad's best points is scenarios that reward a competent use of combined arms. I definitely seek that in tactical games. One of the things I'm looking for as I gain experience with PG is how it creates different decisions than the squad-based tactical games with which I have much more experience. One is at a different command level in PG than ASL, BoB, or CC; that should be reflected in the requirements for competent play.
I will add then that one way a scenario can really shine is if it puts one in a position to dispense with a standard approach and try something different.
RE: good scenario design - zaarin7 - 01-30-2015
Add to the above a scenario that you can't tell who won till the end.
Scenario's with re-play possibilities.
Alan Arvold did a scenario for Panzer Blitz with Russian and German forces for each year of the campaign. I've always thought that was a great idea.
The original Squad Leader had a card driven system to generate small scenario's. I've also thought that was a great idea.
Now insert the prior three posts.
RE: good scenario design - leonard - 02-05-2015
(01-29-2015, 04:40 AM)t1M0t8yk Wrote: I think an interesting topic for discussion is what distinguishes a well-designed scenario from one that is not well-designed.Intriguing question. But covering different topics.
What do you think are features of well-designed PG scenarios?
What do players like ? Really I don't know but as far as ratings are concerned, they will better rate a BIG scenario than a small one, overall. The idea seems to be that if someone spends enough time to play a large scenario until the end, it has to be good enough. On the contrary, small scenarios get more erratic ratings because of the luck involved. Take Saipan as an example, the first (amphibious assault) large scenario cannot collect bad results and commands the rest of the rather small or medium size scenarios.
Designing scenarios is an entirely different question. And there will probably be as many answers as they are designers. As far as I'm concerned, the historical bias is commanding everything. When a particular historical action interests me, I try to use the right terrain, the right order of battle, the right special rules, as much as possible, and still turn it into a PG playable scenario. It's not necessarily the best way to write down the scenario the player like the most. But it is my way.
RE: good scenario design - Hugmenot - 02-06-2015
The fact Red Beach (Saipan #01) is also the first scenario in the series to use an Amphibious Landing may have contributed to its high rating. It's a fun innovation and made the play even more enjoyable.
I will ask Shad if he can extract some data which I will be happy to analyze.
Keep in mind the players that enter their scenario results here may not be a good representation of the PG player population.