Rough Terrain (a Rule of Carnage comentary)
Yesterday I was, once again, listening to the podcast Rule of Carnage (highly recommended by the way). The theme of the podcast is "designing better miniatures games", and most of the episodes are focused on things like getting more tactical choice and depth out of your rules, and on how your mechanics underpin the cinematic realism that you want for your game, over pure realism for the sake of realism. I think the particular episode "White hot RAGE! At rough terrain rules, that is" falls short on both. The title itself does give a waring, but the episode is much more a rant on a particular implementation of difficult terrain that Glenn Ford (one of the hosts) dislikes, rather than creative solutions and analysis of the actual problem. Rants are fine, but the arguments needs to make sense, and at least try to do so from a design perspective. However, this particular episode is super inconsistent, and enough so that I felt i had to make my own rant about it.
The discussion in short is that Glenn dislikes the fact that most rough/difficult terrain rules are simply "rough terrain = half speed". There are two arguments; First is that it is unrealistic, and second, that it is stupid and unfun (and that apparently everyone thinks so).
Half movement is unrealistic?
The first argument is that half movement for running through forest or marshland, is unrealistic. In a world of game design abstraction, where people get hit by arrows and axes and still run around as if nothing happened, this seems a silly argument. But, because I sometimes go off-road into the woods (and other abandoned places), I need to comment. Glenn actually states that when he is in a forest, he can move just as fast as he would otherwise. I have to assume that the kinds of forest Glenn has been to, has thus been some of those nicely groomed ones that employ people to keep them tidy (for those who do not know, yes, they actually remove trees when they fall over, and keep undergrowth in check), and/or that he sticked to the roads. If you have ever been in an unkept forest, in rocky hills, or in an abandoned building, you might have had a very different experience. Imagine going at your regular walking speed through some of the terrain in the pictures below, not to mention trying to run. From personal experience I can say that moving in these types of places wreak havoc to your speed, attention and stamina. Trying to run through will result in bruises, cuts and sprained ankles. Half speed might be harsh, but in my opinion not unrealistic, and at least a perfectly fine abstraction.
The discussion goes on in the comments section. A user notes some of the same findings as mine, and RoC then replies that if terrain was so difficult to pass through, then realistically no one would ever walk into it. And thus, we should just make that terrain impassible. But was the argument not that we wanted realism? And more important, don't we want to give players more choice and strategic depth, rather than removing it? If soldiers are frightened enough, they will run out into the marsh, and do so because they believe it will protect them. If you want to ambush someone, forest and ruins are perfect spots to hide. Not to put words in Glenns mouth, but what I hear him argue in the video and comments is this: "No, you cant go through the mashland or forest in my game, because I think it is unfun to move through terrain slowly, so I would rather forbit it completely".
Half movement is stupid and unfun design?
In the podcast Glenn states, in no subtle terms, that everyone thinks half speed in rough terrain is stupid, unfun and just sucks. But it seems to come solely from his own bad experience with the implementation in games like Warhammer fantasy. And do everyone really think like him? Personally I think the half-speed rule is simple, easy, and does the job. Could it be more interesting? Definitely!
One of the arguments in the episode is that half speed is predictable, and therefore unfun. Glenn then suggests that a way to make it more fun and unpredictable would be dealing arbitrary wounds to models that went through, instead of halving their speed. So, halving a units speed is unrealistic and unfun, but dealing out random wounds and killing off models, is fun and makes perfect sense? *head scratching* Killing off peoples miniatures for arbitrary reasons (i'm looking at you "failed morale" checks) is, in my experience, one of the most "unfun" and arbitrary mechanics. Doing so for failed difficult terrain checks would be something like this: Say your knights, deamons or space marines walk through a small wood, they are not slowed down at all, but when they come out on the other side one is dead and one is wounded. I would have to seriously stretch my imagination to come up with a plausible explanation for this abstraction. And I would have an even harder time finding it fun.
The podcast then goes on to a sentiment I completely agree with though. That the terrain rules needs to underpin interesting tactical and strategic choices. Thus, this whole discussion should be about how we do this? Unfortunately the podcast ends without any real attempt at it, apart from the idea above.
Thoughts on making rough/difficult terrain more interesting
I think the half-speed rule itself is more interesting than simply having all terrain impassible, or terrain giving no penalty at all. It gives more choice, especially so if the board is laid out in a way where the terrain can be used strategically. Examples: "Let's place our archers so the enemy will be slowed in crossing that river to get at us", or "Hm, the enemy line infantry is using that marshland to cover their left flank, so we cannot hit them with all our force at once, do we dare getting a unit stuck out there to get at them?", or "Let's move back through the forest, so we wont be overrun by that cavalry unit, and buy more time for our other troops to come to our aid".
I think the main problem with the half-speed rule is actually not so much the rule itself, but that it could be more than just that.
We could easily add tactical depth to it. Something simple like giving line infantry half speed, but skirmishers full speed (or impassible to line, half to skirmishers. Whatever suits the theme of your game). Maybe force line infantry to "break up formation" giving penalties. All of a sudden you give skirmishers a meaningful tactical advantage. Easy to remember, and it makes sense. Disallow cavalry from charging through difficult terrain, or to do so at a peril. Here it could actually make sense that the some unit would takes wounds.
If you actually dislike the predictability of half move, then allow units to make an agility check to prevent it or modify it? Some units would then naturally be better at moving through than others, giving more control of uncertainty, as well as more player choice. Don't want it to be completely random? Allow players to roll a couple of dice, and choose the highest for movement speed.
Only thing to keep in mind, as always, is that introducing extra rolls and rules, will slow down your gameplay. Would something like 2/3 move be more realistic? Maybe, but we really do no want to make that calculation on the fly. Do the intricacies of moving through difficult terrain actually mean enough to your game to warrant that extra complexity? Or does the half move, actually solve the problem just fine? As always, it all depends on the type of gameplay you want for your game, and the stories your game wants to tell.
Lastly some examples from a trip with my son through our local, fairly groomed, forrest. Even here, you really do not want to try to run at full speed:
