Of Form And Function

"Form follows Function" and "Function follows Form", two duelling design maxims and like most such bitter fights, both sides of the debate are right to some degree. This weekend I belatedly realized that this debate was at the heart of my seesaw problems without it having been consciously considered in that light.   Worse than that, solving the issues was going to require deciding on priorities, making careful, informed, choices and sticking with them. Oh NO!

"Sawmill Village" is an encounter scenario with victory resting on control of the crossroads town. Blue won the race to the town but wasn't aggressive enough to  take the whole thing before Red grabbed a foothold.

One of the advantages of writing a blog is that I have a decade of posts not only recounting games and showing pictures but snatches of design discussions of varying merit. Somethings come and go, some things get invented and reinvented and too often forgotten, and somethings just keep coming back if one looks.  One thing I seem to periodically take a run at is designing a game which has it all, large armies of big figures in big units which has all the detail of the most complex games but which fits easily on a small table and can be played in an hour or two even when tired or all day with a crowd of players.

I blame my Old School introduction and fondness for reading low level memoirs when I can find them but if I were ever to achieve that contrary goal, turning lead to gold should be easy as my next trick.

The armies are both up and battle plans have been decided on.

When I played the game I was going to write up on Saturday, I enjoyed it but something niggled so I played it again then again focusing more on how the game played rather than on enjoying the story that was unfolding on the table. I like the look of the slightly larger units in the 6" squares but when paying careful attention I soon realized that the table wasn't big enough (functionally) to give sufficient manoeuvre  room to make an interesting game and that while units were wide enough to fill a square, they were thin enough in line that several times I discovered that I had moved a unit adjacent to an enemy unit without seeing it and that the units that should have been resolving close combat were either ignoring each other or planning to open fire at range 2 when they were already at 1.

The use of multi-stand figures and large squares also gave me an irresistible urge to play with formations and other of the things that were supposed to be below the level of the game and as a result I was not really focusing on my intended role as "General" but rather on being Brigadier and Colonel focused on the various details more than on the over all battle. The practice belied the stated intent that the player was General not every officer on the table.

That was  when I decided to go back and review more than a hundred Square Brigadier posts and as expected I found certain themes, issues and debates cropping up again and again with every major deviation from the original game eventually failing and forcing a  reboot or a turn to Old School rules for a simple but lengthy, tiring, game of tactics which I soon tire of.

Blue has stuck to their plan in a passive sort of way, but Red has flip flopped with the usual result.

At least I understand now that my urge to mount units on a single base is not really driven by aesthetics or  convenience but as a way to remove the urge to fiddle with formations which despite my best intentions, always leads me to increased attention to all of those tactical details that the rules are supposed to "factor in" so that player must focus on being the general.  `

I also stumbled on a post from late 2017 when I was working on my Great War centennial game that expresses my conclusion that the six inch grid was a failure because the squares there were too few squares for manoeuvre, even after expanding my table enough to hamper movement through my room and for all the same reasons I mentioned above as well as a few others and that I needed to go back to smaller grid squares when I got back from Huzzah! Oops.

Thus it was that I got out my 5" grid cloth and laid out this game and with my Oerburg games in mind, reorganized my 54's to simulate old Square Brigadier style units with 4 infantry or 3 cavalry on a single base.

Having repulsed all of Red's attacks, Blue sits back contentedly as the sun sets and contemplates his report on how he boldly seized the important crossroad, throwing the Red forces back until an aide reminds him that actually, Red still holds a corner of the town. The Blue army had been too busy repelling attacks to ever launch one of their own. Oh........oh dear.

The 5" grid that Sunday's game was played on worked better and the troops gamely pretended to be fixed to a single base per unit with rules adjusted back to something very like the old Square Brigadier.  The corner markers for the four inch grid on the main table have mysteriously reappeared though and I plan to give them a go today, a tight fit for 54's and some terrain items but an expansive field with than twice as many squares as the six inch grid and room for more units as well as more manoeuvre. 

Tenth Anniversary!

Today, the Ides of February, is the 10th anniversary of the CRPG Addict.

I have no long screed for you today. The value that I get from this project, my gratitude toward my readers and commenters, my hopes for the future, have mostly been encapsulated already in my recent 10th-anniversary entries:
             

• 10 Reasons I'm Still Blogging
• My 10 Most Controversial Opinions
• 10 Years of Commenters

             
I had originally planned to do a lot more of these, but most of my ideas required going through my blog from the beginning. I thought I was going to have time for that during the winter, but it turned out not to be the case. I might still get to a few more.

Today, I'd like to simply announce three things:

1. If you haven't already noticed, we have a new banner! Sebastian from Switzerland, who previously made my GIMLET logo, put this together. (That's part of my map of Fate: Gates of Dawn in the background.) I just love the shield.

2. I just posted a couple of helpful new pages. Both were created by longtime commenter Abacos, and the first organizes many of the games I've played into their series, both in a macro sense (e.g., "Forgotten Realms") and a micro sense (e.g., "Infinity Engine"). Yes, he has places for those yet-to-come, too.

The second page is a long-awaited index of special topics entries over the years. Both are accessible from the right-hand navigation bar on desktop and from the top navigation menu on mobile.

3. Finally: You're going to be seeing a fairly significant change on "The CRPG Addict": a relaxing of my rules to allow me, slowly and cautiously, to move forward without necessarily finishing every game from the previous year.

I know this move will not be popular with everyone, but I feel it is necessary. After more than two years of work, I still have 23 games remaining in 1992. There are 80 for 1993. I've managed to cover 350 games in 10 years; that many again will barely get us through 1997. I want to play Baldur's Gate and Morrowind again before I die, not to mention some classics that I've never played, like the first two Fallout games, Planescape: Torment, and Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates.

However, I'm going to put some strict rules on the endeavor, one of which is that at least one-third of the games that make up my "upcoming" list will be the earliest games that I have not yet played. I will thus still keep sweeping up the past, still finishing years, still designating "games of the year," and so on.

Beyond that, I don't really want to explain my rules just yet. I floated some ideas with my Patreon subscribers and received some great comments. I'm going to experiment with a few methods of selecting games from my long list. However, there is one rule that is very important for me, to ensure that my blog still remains chronologically relevant: I can play no game before its antecedents. I mean this in several ways:
            

• Direct antecedents: Icewind Dale must come before Icewind Dale II.

• Spiritual antecedents: Dark Souls must come before Lords of the Fallen because the latter is clearly designed to evoke the former.

• Technical antecedents: Neverwinter Nights must come before Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic because they both use the Aurora Engine.

• Cultural antecedents: Abandoned Places: A Time for Heroes, the first Hungarian RPG, should come before any other RPGs from Hungary.

• Source antecedents: Even though they're not part of the same specific series, Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny must come before The Dark Eye: Drakensang because they're both based on The Dark Eye tabletop setting.

• Major thematic antecedents: The first game to do something significant should be played before other games that include the same element. For instance, Ultima Underworld should be played before any other dungeon crawler with continuous movement.

• Personnel antecedents: As the first BioWare game, Baldur's Gate should come before any others from that developer.

           
You can see how this rule ensures that I won't be jumping to Mass Effect 3 any time in the near future. Indeed, the "central tendency" of my blog will likely remain in the early 1990s for quite some time. Trust me for now, watch what happens over the next year, and we'll do an evaluation on my next anniversary. In the meantime, help me by telling me if I've missed any clear antecedents. Thematic and technical ones are particularly difficult to look up. If you see a game on my "upcoming" list that shouldn't be there, let me know and I'll replace it with its antecedent, if I agree.

Thanks as always for your readership and participation. I have no intention of quitting or slowing down, and I look forward to the next 10 years!