The Inside Scoop on Gaming

Okay, so let's say this d20 is the evil ogre...

I've always wanted to try large-scale miniatures wargaming--even in my RPG campaigns, we'd use lead minis for the players and miscellaneous markers for villains to act out combat scenes with--well, I can't say accuracy, but with a good deal more verisimilitude than verbal descriptions and hand-waving.

Of course, there were never enough minis to go around (those things add up after a while!), particularly for the villains, leading to many improvised counters; very frequently monsters were represented by dice, which was problematic when you needed one of the orcs for a damage roll. And with that in mind, I rather despaired of ever seeing a large-scale miniatures battle without some SERIOUS investment in minis. And, since most "serious" miniatures games are rife with simulation-heavy rules, I despaired of getting any of my rules-light friends to join in.

Disks to the Rescue

The folks at Fantasy Flight games have come up with a fairly ideal solution to the problem: use cardboard disks printed with the image of playing pieces, and market it as a collectible game. Each disk has the image of a creature or creatures, various ratings (attack, defense, toughness, move, wounds...), and a bit of text describing its special abilities.

The basic rules are very simple--disks move a number of "flips" equal to their movement; combat is resolved from the top down, and is diceless (and avoids a fair amount of "math in public".) Missile fire is handled by stacking cardboard missile counters on another disk, holding it a foot above the target, and tilting the disk so the missiles fall onto the playfield. Each player "activates" three disks at a time, so play travels around the table at a fairly reasonable pace, and scales pretty well to multiple players. And of course, any text on the disks overrides the basic rules...

In fact, the rules are freely downloadable at http://www.diskwars.com/dwrules.pdf, and I highly encourage anyone considering Diskwars to have a look at the rules (if you're exceptionally motivated, you could even cut your own disks out of cardboard or use coins or some such to simulate play. TortillaWars might be interesting...). Rather than focus on the freely-available rules, I'll comment on good and bad aspects I've seen in the course of play.

The Good

Categories of Games

All games (and gamers) seem to fall into one of three rough categories:

Dramaticists try to tell a story. Rules, particularly complex ones, tend to get in the way, but are often necessary to add focus and structure. Fudge is an example of an outstanding Dramatic-style RPG--rules light and very flexible.
Simulationists try to replicate the real world. Rules, particularly complex ones, are highly desired if they model a reality consistently and well (note that I didn't necessarily say "our" reality...). In general, miniature wargames focus more toward the simulationist crowd. GURPS is an example of a fairly simulationist RPG, with rules about darn near everything if you need.
Gamers try to play a game. Rules are important and must be followed consistently, but they don't necessarily have to be realistic. Gamer games are the traditional "game"--rules are there so that there can be a winner that all can agree on. Dungeons and Dragons is a classic "gamey" RPG--the rules don't make sense, but are intended to be followed for balance.

I mention these distinctions because a bad match between player style and game style can be very irritating. With the group of folks I game with (story-focused, rules-light, etc), insisting on using GURPS with every rule in place would be a waste of effort and would irritate everyone. How does this relate to Diskwars?

Diskwars falls strongly on the "game" division of the three--the rules aren't very "realistic", and with text on the disks able to counteract basic rules, reality goes out the window quickly. Likewise, Diskwars is intended to be fairly fast, thus the diceless combat resolution. Hardcore simulation-style miniatures players will likely be turned off by this. By the same token, it's much more accessible to the average non-hardcore player, which is a great point for Diskwars.

The location of information

Design gurus are fond of discussing where information is located--in the world at large, in peoples' heads, or somewhere in between (like, say, a rulebook). Diskwars, perhaps unwittingly, takes a good combination--a small set of information (the basic rules) is easy to memorize, and everything else is on the disks. This has a lot of benefits--first, even beginning players know about as much of the game as advanced players. Second, it allows a great deal of post-production customization--Fantasy Flight Games can continue to publish new disks for some time without really changing the rules. Third, it means that everything you need is encapsulated in the disk design itself--a large disk can move farther each step, and can involve more opposing disks in combat, but at the same time presents a larger target for multiple attackers or missile fire. With movement decided by a number of flips and disk size, there's little need for rulers (except when measuring for missile fire etc).

The reason this is important is that, once play starts, players frequently do not have to refer to any rules, and this can be a very powerful factor in player enjoyment. Play can proceed fairly smoothly, since everything is literally on the table (this is not without flaws; see "the bad", later).

The quickness of play

Despite the simple rules, Diskwars games can take quite some time. However, they go much more quickly than standard miniatures games--there's virtually no tracking damage or complex combat, so it's relatively easy to have several two- or three-player battles in a couple of hours. Our last game was a monstrous seven-player extravaganza, and while it did take a couple of hours, it was moving fairly well, and significantly faster than comparable games on the tables around us.

Scales well

Similarly, Diskwars scales well as a multiplayer game. The rules allow games with as many players as can fit, and team play is very possible. A variety of scenarios translates to a great deal of replay value, and the combination of disks with interlocking abilities and a flexible point-based army creation system means that you can get an awful lot of mileage out of the game from the beginning.

The Bad

I Smell Errata

Unfortunately, while the concept is outstanding and the gameplay fun, there are a few problems with Diskwars. First, there are a lot of errata. As of this writing, there have been five releases in the Diskwars line--original, revised, Moon over Thelgrim, Wastelands, and Legions. To my knowledge, each one has made substantial errata over its predecessors. These range anywhere from typographical errors to content errors to simple play imbalances. Now, this sort of thing happens in many collectible-style games, but it's always an irritation. It often feels like Fantasy Flight games simply doesn't spend enough time on quality control.

So... what opposes "attack", anyway?

I said above that the basic rules were easily memorizable and the information necessary for play was on the disks themselves. What I didn't mention is that the information is presented in a non-intuitive way. For example, a disk's basic combat ratings are attack, defense, toughness, and wounds. But what opposes attack? Just about anyone would say "defense"--but that's not quite true. Toughness opposes both attack and defense. This will seem a silly point to Diskwars players, but I've had trouble introducing new players to the game because of it. Renaming defense to "counterattack" or referring to the ratings as "attack damage" and "defense damage" might be more accurate.

Second, the disks themselves could be organized better. Attack, defense, and toughness are in three identical circles at the top. By making the attack and defense circles overlap (as if they represented an attacking and defending disk), it would be very obvious what they meant. Similarly, movement is at the bottom left of the disk, but the indicator for a flying disk is at the right--why aren't they together? Toughness is a number in a circle, while the number of wounds a disk can take is elsewhere in a bordered square. Why aren't they together? A unit's cost is in a black oval at the bottom--why not an icon representing cost, like a coin? This may seem a silly quip, but I've gotten confused in the middle of battles before, moving a piece a number of flips equal to its cost instead of its movement...

Minor points, but they annoy nonetheless. I've considered making up "anatomy of a disk" cards for new players so they can keep things straight.

Collectible can be a bad word

One of the things about Diskwars that's both good and bad is that it's collectible, much like many card games on the market. Generally, this is not a bad thing--the game is quite playable out of the box (and if you start with one of the "Legions" two-player packs, can come with very capable armies), and collection increases interaction between players, etc.

Unfortunately, it also means that as future expansion packs come out, the game gets more and more complex. One of the Fantasy Flight folks even commented that one of the things they were looking for for new disks was new and interesting special abilities. That's not bad, but it seems like every new disk has some sort of new and different special ability, and it seems like there isn't a lot of thought about how that will interact with other abilities to unbalance the game. This hasn't been terribly bad, but it's quite noticeable.

So... can I turn a disk in mid-flip?

Another problem with a rules-light game is that rules interpretations can get out of hand. For players interested in competition, this can be bloodletting (do you have to play on a cushioned felt surface, without which archers are almost useless? Can you turn a disk in mid-flip, allowing for shorter movements? If I use a spell to reverse the position of two disks with different sizes, what does that do to the disks around them?). Not a terrible problem if you have accommodating players, but believe me--this can get out of hand fast.

The Ugly

Luckily, there's not much ugly about Diskwars. For the most part, the art is fine, the concepts are good, and I do like the introduction of a couple of non-traditional fantasy elements (while I look on them fondly, I do tire eventually of orcs, elves, dwarves, and the like).

The Bottom Line

It's easy to assume from the large "bad" section that I'm not a big Diskwars fan. Nothing could be further from the truth--I really like the game very much. It's interesting and enjoyable, scales well, and is a heck of a lot of fun. I would prefer it if a few problems were fixed, but even if they're not, I'll be following the game for some time. Interested players would do well to pick up one of the "legions" boxes for about US$25 and play a few rounds to see what they think of the basic mechanics, etc.

It's flexible, fun, and easy to learn. For a game that scales this well from small skirmishes to large-scale battles, you could do a lot worse.

-->VPutz

Style: 4 (Classy and well done)
Substance: 4 (Meaty)

Diskwars
Author: Tom Jolly et al Category: miniature Company/Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games Line: Diskwars Cost: ~$10/standalone, $25/two-player, $5/booster Page count: n/a Playtest Review by Victor B. Putz on 10/09/00. Genre tags: Fantasy Diceless	Okay, so let's say this d20 is the evil ogre... I've always wanted to try large-scale miniatures wargaming--even in my RPG campaigns, we'd use lead minis for the players and miscellaneous markers for villains to act out combat scenes with--well, I can't say accuracy, but with a good deal more verisimilitude than verbal descriptions and hand-waving. Of course, there were never enough minis to go around (those things add up after a while!), particularly for the villains, leading to many improvised counters; very frequently monsters were represented by dice, which was problematic when you needed one of the orcs for a damage roll. And with that in mind, I rather despaired of ever seeing a large-scale miniatures battle without some SERIOUS investment in minis. And, since most "serious" miniatures games are rife with simulation-heavy rules, I despaired of getting any of my rules-light friends to join in. Disks to the Rescue The folks at Fantasy Flight games have come up with a fairly ideal solution to the problem: use cardboard disks printed with the image of playing pieces, and market it as a collectible game. Each disk has the image of a creature or creatures, various ratings (attack, defense, toughness, move, wounds...), and a bit of text describing its special abilities. The basic rules are very simple--disks move a number of "flips" equal to their movement; combat is resolved from the top down, and is diceless (and avoids a fair amount of "math in public".) Missile fire is handled by stacking cardboard missile counters on another disk, holding it a foot above the target, and tilting the disk so the missiles fall onto the playfield. Each player "activates" three disks at a time, so play travels around the table at a fairly reasonable pace, and scales pretty well to multiple players. And of course, any text on the disks overrides the basic rules... In fact, the rules are freely downloadable at http://www.diskwars.com/dwrules.pdf, and I highly encourage anyone considering Diskwars to have a look at the rules (if you're exceptionally motivated, you could even cut your own disks out of cardboard or use coins or some such to simulate play. TortillaWars might be interesting...). Rather than focus on the freely-available rules, I'll comment on good and bad aspects I've seen in the course of play. The Good Categories of Games All games (and gamers) seem to fall into one of three rough categories: Dramaticists try to tell a story. Rules, particularly complex ones, tend to get in the way, but are often necessary to add focus and structure. Fudge is an example of an outstanding Dramatic-style RPG--rules light and very flexible. Simulationists try to replicate the real world. Rules, particularly complex ones, are highly desired if they model a reality consistently and well (note that I didn't necessarily say "our" reality...). In general, miniature wargames focus more toward the simulationist crowd. GURPS is an example of a fairly simulationist RPG, with rules about darn near everything if you need. Gamers try to play a game. Rules are important and must be followed consistently, but they don't necessarily have to be realistic. Gamer games are the traditional "game"--rules are there so that there can be a winner that all can agree on. Dungeons and Dragons is a classic "gamey" RPG--the rules don't make sense, but are intended to be followed for balance. I mention these distinctions because a bad match between player style and game style can be very irritating. With the group of folks I game with (story-focused, rules-light, etc), insisting on using GURPS with every rule in place would be a waste of effort and would irritate everyone. How does this relate to Diskwars? Diskwars falls strongly on the "game" division of the three--the rules aren't very "realistic", and with text on the disks able to counteract basic rules, reality goes out the window quickly. Likewise, Diskwars is intended to be fairly fast, thus the diceless combat resolution. Hardcore simulation-style miniatures players will likely be turned off by this. By the same token, it's much more accessible to the average non-hardcore player, which is a great point for Diskwars. The location of information Design gurus are fond of discussing where information is located--in the world at large, in peoples' heads, or somewhere in between (like, say, a rulebook). Diskwars, perhaps unwittingly, takes a good combination--a small set of information (the basic rules) is easy to memorize, and everything else is on the disks. This has a lot of benefits--first, even beginning players know about as much of the game as advanced players. Second, it allows a great deal of post-production customization--Fantasy Flight Games can continue to publish new disks for some time without really changing the rules. Third, it means that everything you need is encapsulated in the disk design itself--a large disk can move farther each step, and can involve more opposing disks in combat, but at the same time presents a larger target for multiple attackers or missile fire. With movement decided by a number of flips and disk size, there's little need for rulers (except when measuring for missile fire etc). The reason this is important is that, once play starts, players frequently do not have to refer to any rules, and this can be a very powerful factor in player enjoyment. Play can proceed fairly smoothly, since everything is literally on the table (this is not without flaws; see "the bad", later). The quickness of play Despite the simple rules, Diskwars games can take quite some time. However, they go much more quickly than standard miniatures games--there's virtually no tracking damage or complex combat, so it's relatively easy to have several two- or three-player battles in a couple of hours. Our last game was a monstrous seven-player extravaganza, and while it did take a couple of hours, it was moving fairly well, and significantly faster than comparable games on the tables around us. Scales well Similarly, Diskwars scales well as a multiplayer game. The rules allow games with as many players as can fit, and team play is very possible. A variety of scenarios translates to a great deal of replay value, and the combination of disks with interlocking abilities and a flexible point-based army creation system means that you can get an awful lot of mileage out of the game from the beginning. The Bad I Smell Errata Unfortunately, while the concept is outstanding and the gameplay fun, there are a few problems with Diskwars. First, there are a lot of errata. As of this writing, there have been five releases in the Diskwars line--original, revised, Moon over Thelgrim, Wastelands, and Legions. To my knowledge, each one has made substantial errata over its predecessors. These range anywhere from typographical errors to content errors to simple play imbalances. Now, this sort of thing happens in many collectible-style games, but it's always an irritation. It often feels like Fantasy Flight games simply doesn't spend enough time on quality control. So... what opposes "attack", anyway? I said above that the basic rules were easily memorizable and the information necessary for play was on the disks themselves. What I didn't mention is that the information is presented in a non-intuitive way. For example, a disk's basic combat ratings are attack, defense, toughness, and wounds. But what opposes attack? Just about anyone would say "defense"--but that's not quite true. Toughness opposes both attack and defense. This will seem a silly point to Diskwars players, but I've had trouble introducing new players to the game because of it. Renaming defense to "counterattack" or referring to the ratings as "attack damage" and "defense damage" might be more accurate. Second, the disks themselves could be organized better. Attack, defense, and toughness are in three identical circles at the top. By making the attack and defense circles overlap (as if they represented an attacking and defending disk), it would be very obvious what they meant. Similarly, movement is at the bottom left of the disk, but the indicator for a flying disk is at the right--why aren't they together? Toughness is a number in a circle, while the number of wounds a disk can take is elsewhere in a bordered square. Why aren't they together? A unit's cost is in a black oval at the bottom--why not an icon representing cost, like a coin? This may seem a silly quip, but I've gotten confused in the middle of battles before, moving a piece a number of flips equal to its cost instead of its movement... Minor points, but they annoy nonetheless. I've considered making up "anatomy of a disk" cards for new players so they can keep things straight. Collectible can be a bad word One of the things about Diskwars that's both good and bad is that it's collectible, much like many card games on the market. Generally, this is not a bad thing--the game is quite playable out of the box (and if you start with one of the "Legions" two-player packs, can come with very capable armies), and collection increases interaction between players, etc. Unfortunately, it also means that as future expansion packs come out, the game gets more and more complex. One of the Fantasy Flight folks even commented that one of the things they were looking for for new disks was new and interesting special abilities. That's not bad, but it seems like every new disk has some sort of new and different special ability, and it seems like there isn't a lot of thought about how that will interact with other abilities to unbalance the game. This hasn't been terribly bad, but it's quite noticeable. So... can I turn a disk in mid-flip? Another problem with a rules-light game is that rules interpretations can get out of hand. For players interested in competition, this can be bloodletting (do you have to play on a cushioned felt surface, without which archers are almost useless? Can you turn a disk in mid-flip, allowing for shorter movements? If I use a spell to reverse the position of two disks with different sizes, what does that do to the disks around them?). Not a terrible problem if you have accommodating players, but believe me--this can get out of hand fast. The Ugly Luckily, there's not much ugly about Diskwars. For the most part, the art is fine, the concepts are good, and I do like the introduction of a couple of non-traditional fantasy elements (while I look on them fondly, I do tire eventually of orcs, elves, dwarves, and the like). The Bottom Line It's easy to assume from the large "bad" section that I'm not a big Diskwars fan. Nothing could be further from the truth--I really like the game very much. It's interesting and enjoyable, scales well, and is a heck of a lot of fun. I would prefer it if a few problems were fixed, but even if they're not, I'll be following the game for some time. Interested players would do well to pick up one of the "legions" boxes for about US$25 and play a few rounds to see what they think of the basic mechanics, etc. It's flexible, fun, and easy to learn. For a game that scales this well from small skirmishes to large-scale battles, you could do a lot worse. -->VPutz Style: 4 (Classy and well done) Substance: 4 (Meaty)