What is the difference between really designing and just throwing parts at a design? How do you know you've got a design and not just a concatenation of parts stuck together?

The weaving together of separate subsystems is one of the hallmarks of a 'design,' and it's through weaving subsystems together that you create a shape, an architecture for your design.

The point is not to avoid crafting rules separately and assembling them. Each separate subsystem has to be written as a separate entity. To discuss separate subjects in your rules you break them down into subsystems. So if you do a very good job, being very careful to keep your subject matter strictly and narrowly focused on one subsystemand you accomplish this by writing the effect of a rule under the heading of that rule--then you can take that subsystem and plug it in to another design. The weaving together of separate subsystems is one of the hallmarks of a 'design,' and it's through weaving subsystems together that you create a shape, an architecture for your design.

The best and perhaps the only genuine way of determining the difference between weaving the subsystems together and just throwing parts together is simply to playtest your designs. Either you playtest or-as I recommend-you get two people to playtest and you stand by with a clipboard and take notes on every change that you have to make, every question that your playtesters have. You have to watch them like a hawk to make sure they're doing things right, because they might end up playing a very different game than you designed. If the game has a good flow of play, it is likely that the parts are well joined.

Two major subsystems present in every wargame are Movement and Combat. These in turn are comprised of further subsystems. Combat comprises a subsystem for defining battles, a Combat Resolution subsystem-centered on the Combat Results Table(s)-and a result implementation subsystem (retreats, losses, etc.)

As with Movement and Combat, most major subsystems have a separate phase in the Player Turn devoted to them. However, some subsystems, such as Zones of Control, affect things during many different phases. So the Zones of Control subsystem weaves together movement and combat.

How many subsystems do you need?

A game is a machine to generate an output, and the output is either going to be positive or negative for one player or the other- a one or a zero. You either won or you lost. That's the output. The game's subsystems are all going to have an influence on that output. For instance, the Victory Points subsystem. If you get more than a specified number of victory points then you get one victory point and your opponent gets none. The number of victory points that he had suddenly doesn't matter.

And victory points might be generated by combat losses or strength points lost or units lost or villages taken or critical battles. So the victory points play into the final output and every other subsystem plays into victory points. If you trace the impact of every subsystem on the final output, then you will be able to evaluate whether it is in fact necessary to the design. It's nice to have a VP scale that moves during the game because then you can modulate the VP subsystem.

If you trace the impact of every subsystem on the final output, then you will be able to evaluate whether it is in fact necessary to the design.

In Napoleon's Last Battles a major subsystem, Leadership and Command, was added, and this subsystem was seen as overlaying the basic Move and Fight wargame. The idea was that leadership and command would potentially have an impact on anything that could happen in the game. They would primarily influence movement and combat. One particular goal of leadership and command was to find a way to explain and reproduce the limited kinds of frontages that we should see in a Napoleonic battlefield. Rather than having units lined up from one mapedge to the other, the image we wanted to see was groups of units under corps officers, operating in little task forces.

Leadership and Command are paramount, so they have their own phase in the Sequence of Play, and six major sections devoted to their use.

I derived the structure of Napoleon at Leipzig from Napoleon's Last Battles. By holding constant all the parameters of scale, I was able to keep the Standard and Campaign Rules very similar. The Standard Rules came from the Quadri Games. The very notion of Standard Rules resulted from production time constraints placed on the SPI Quadri Games. Although this at first seemed like a loss, it actually freed designers to focus on functions besides movement and combat. We had a pretty good representation of how units move from hex to hex and engage the enemy; why reinvent the wheel? Let's put them together and add a motor. The missing motor, as I saw it, was Leadership and Command, and so a new layer of rules dealing with leaders was added to the "chassis" of the Standard Quadri Game Rules.

What is a System?

A system is a group of things working together-an arrangement of things to form an organic whole. In the human body, a system is a number of organs working together to perform one of the main bodily functions; e.g., the circulatory system. A game system can comprise, say, all the movement rules in a game, or you can speak of several subsystems working together as a "game-system."

A system is not just a static picture. You're trying to reveal through the experience of play the dynamic or action, just as "drama" means action-the forces of the various personalities, their conflicting desires, their internal conflicts. The only difference about the kind of action in a play is that it's scripted and predetermined. You might think of a wargame as a kind of play where the two players are taking the roles of two generals. They're acting their part in a play. And while the scenario is predetermined the outcome is not. You have all the drama of assaults, repulsed attacks, desperate marches. What is missing are the personality aspects of the characters being portrayed. What if we had players playing the role of the character throughout the game?

With the rules on "Orders" in Napoleon at Leipzig, I wanted to bring the game a step closer to role-playing. This was the decisive turn taken in the design. I knew I hadn't succeeded completely, but I felt somebody else would get the idea and improve on it. Today, several fine versions of Orders rules are in use.

What if the game you designed doesn't "flow?" What are some techniques for analysing the problem and uncovering possible solutions? When you find that a rule isn't working, you can first try minor rules modifications.

I knew I hadn't succeeded completely, but I felt somebody else would get the idea and improve on it. Today, several fine versions of Orders rules are in use.

Cost benefit-ratio

In good design, every rule that enables you to gain a benefit also has a down side or potential risk. The player must weigh and trade-off advantages and disadvantages. Often a solution can be found by adjusting the cost-benefit ratio in the rule.

The best kind of modification combines and condenses two rules into one. The first edition of Napoleon at Leipzig added Engagement Command (command for entering Enemy ZOCs) to the concept of Movement Command already known from Napoleon's Last Battles. After a while this began to seem too cumbersome, so in the second edition, everybody could move freely unless they wished to engage; these had to be in command. This was just shy of obviating command altogether, so in the third edition, Movement Commands returned, Engagement Commands are out, but Initiative Movement is allowed for everybody. In the Campaign Game, individual units now have an initiative rating of one; integrated stacks, two.

A system is not just a static picture. You're trying to reveal through the experience of play the dynamic or action, just as "drama" means actionthe forces of the various personalities, their conflicting desires, their internal conflicts.

All wargame designs are based on an already existing model. Your job is to modify that old structure in a new way. You can add rules, take away rules, and loop-hole or tighten-up rules. You can use an eclectic approach, choosing rules ideas from many different games, and weave them all together according to your design conception.

Additional new rules can take many forms:

Wrinkle

A new way to perform an existing action.

Chrome

Like chrome on an automobiles, chrome has its place in game design. It must be used sparingly, and only to put a highlight on an important subsystem, to focus further attention on the subject. The term implies a mechanism that can be briefly stated, with a momentary effect. Optional Rules are often chrome.

Twist

A modification of a rule that upsets or distorts its normal use. The cavalry charge rules in Napoleon at Leipzig, which allow opposing units temporarily to occupy the same hex, are an example.

Loop-hole

You can tighten-up rules by adding (usually) a couple of sentences at the end of the topic.

Symmetry

In Chess, the most symmetrical of games, both sides have the same capabilities. Still, the one asymmetry, white's first move, looms large. By contrast, wargames are asymmetrical due to the differing strengths of the armies, even though the rules apply equally to both players; e.g., both sides have infantry, and all infantry functions alike.

Scenarios

The scenario information sections give the set-up, duration, and victory goals, and move closer to play; setting on-map parameters. These parameters are unlike the other rules, because they give the particulars of the situation.

Design Load

The work load placed on the gamer. Good designers keep the design load as low as possible. Reading the rules, variables to keep track of, the way systems interact, are all parts of design load. Thoughtful graphic presentation often works to decrease load.

Design Symposium

The Evaluation of Units
What is Wargame Design?
The Subsystem