One of the things I enjoy most about making these videos is that so many of them begin with questions from viewers. This week's discussion was inspired by Tony Wentworth, who asked a deceptively simple question: should historical wargame rules do everything possible to produce the "correct" historical result?
Most of us want our games to feel authentic. We want armies to behave as they did historically, commanders to face the same challenges, and the battlefield to reward historically sensible tactics. But at the same time, we're still playing a game. If every battle is predetermined because history tells us who won, where does that leave the players?
My own view is that a good ruleset should always be capable of reproducing the historical outcome. If the rules accurately represent troop quality, command, morale, terrain and weapon effectiveness, then the historical result should be one possible outcome. The important word, though, is "possible" rather than "guaranteed."
History is full of battles that seem almost impossible to recreate without some additional help from the rules. Agincourt relied heavily on terrible ground conditions, French overconfidence and the effectiveness of English longbowmen. Thermopylae depended almost entirely on geography until betrayal changed everything. Rorke's Drift was shaped by carefully prepared defences, disciplined rifle fire, leadership, fatigue and the pauses between successive Zulu attacks.
Without acknowledging those unique historical circumstances, generic tabletop rules often produce results that look nothing like the real battles. That's where carefully designed scenarios and special rules become valuable. They shouldn't dictate the outcome, but they should recreate the conditions that made the historical outcome possible.
For me, that's where the real challenge of historical game design lies. A scenario should encourage players to make the same kinds of decisions their historical counterparts faced, while still leaving enough uncertainty that skill, judgement and luck can produce different results. After all, if players have no meaningful choices, they're simply acting out history rather than exploring it.
That's what makes this such an interesting subject to discuss. There probably isn't a single right answer. Some players prefer tightly scripted historical recreations, while others enjoy seeing history take an entirely different direction once the first dice are rolled. Wherever you fall on that spectrum, I think we can all agree on one thing: the best historical games are the ones that leave both players feeling they had meaningful decisions to make and a genuine chance to influence the battle.
I'd love to know where you stand. Should historical rules prioritise historical accuracy above everything else, or should player agency always come first? Join the discussion in the comments below and let me know your thoughts.
Firstly, you've made a clear point that the issue is rarely with the rules being used, but more often with the scenario design. If some historical commander made what looks like a blunder, were they mis-informed? or chasing some other goal that isn't on the tabletop? Consider a game of Agincourt where each French player loses 1 victory point for each other French noble who closes with the English before he does. Oh, and he only gains 1 VP for each dozen English archers killed (since they are only peasants). Make the ground a little uneven, with random stickiness, so that the knights move forward 12" each turn, minus 2d6 inches for mud. That should be enough to see them charge forward as fast as they can. without wasting time wandering around the flanks. The only way to win is by pressing forward to clear away the English.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, what caused the Zulus at Rorke's Drift to pause their attacks? Did they have limited energy to keep pressing on, or was there some other consideration that is missing from this scenario? Should they be allowed to press the attack but with minus factors in combat for exhaustion or loss of VP for breaking with some tradition? There must have been a reason for the pauses, and it needs to be included in the scenario. These are the battles that need more research to understand what led to the bad decisions before they can be brought to the table.
Hi Lee,
ReplyDeleteYou've hit the nail on the head here. The rules should make the historical outcome possible, but never guaranteed. It's all about balancing that period flavour with meaningful choices for both sides, otherwise, we're just rolling dice to confirm a history book. Thanks for another thought-provoking clip!
Cheers, Andy
I think I'm with Dave on this. You can have the best rules in the world, but if the scenario is poorly conceived then the outcome may be neither "historical", plausible nor engaging for the players.
ReplyDeleteIt’s the scenarios obviously. Simon
ReplyDeleteEven if our games and the historical battle would follow the same rules, the historical outcome only is one possible outcome - one single game so to speak. It's often difficult to determine whether that single outcome itself is the result of exceptional die rolling.
ReplyDeleteIt's a known flaw in simulation design in which one has a limited number of sampling points, and where we do not know the underlying probability distribution that produced those sample points. We can make some informed guesses, of course, but even then there's a danger to ignore some important parameters that are crucial to replicating those outcomes.
I am with Phil! This would have been my response, exactly.
DeleteBoth approaches so depends on scenario and human factors like how you and opponent feel at the time...
Delete