Sunday 31 January 2016

Dragon Rampant trial game

Last Sunday at the club, (has it really been a whole week already?) I put on a game of Dragon Rampant. (The fantasy version of "Lion Rampant" rules by Osprey).

The problem came in that so many people wanted to play and I wanted to try the rules. When I say "problem" it is actually a joy, but the first time you try any rules you do want less players really. I Had set it up for a max of 5 players, 2 each side with me as a ref. But ended up with 7 players and at least one more wanting to pay.  The rules suggest 24 army points for each side based on 2 players. So foolishly I went over the top and dished out 22 army points to each player and a couple of spare units to give to each sides commander to distribute as he saw fit. I did point out that feudal Japan was not a democracy and that he could keep the spare units for himself to command. But the troops did tend to get distributed  anyway. This amount of troops did stretch my samurai figure resources. As I said 4 players would have been better as IT would allow me greater control of what was going on.

As no one had played the rules before the battle did become a meat grinder. With Unit after unit being sent to the slaughter. the big problem was that several times (3 turns in a row for one player) low dice were rolled and no units could activate. In a smaller game a reff familiar with the rules could follow what was going on a lot better. But in this size game and with everyone NOT knowing the rules I spent most of the day calling out statistics and looking things up.

That said the rules did work well and I would be happy to use them again with fewer people and a little more control. Players did pick up the rules very quickly and seemed to enjoy the game as not needing to worry about things like wheeling or expanding formation or contracting it did speed up play.

But overall it was a classic case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. And fewer players all being able to learn the rules would have been a better solution. So that is all my fault and not the fault of the rules.

With 6 players all learning the rules at the same time what else did I expect.

The positives.
  • The rules are easy to pick up and play and give a decent uncomplicated game
  • It did give me a chance to get two seldom used armies out and onto the table.
  • The rules are versatile enough to play historical and fantasy games
  • The rules are easy to understand and interpret
  • While a few things (as in every set of rules I find) were less than clear in the writing they made good sense in the playing.
The negatives.
  • The only real drawbacks were my not being able to sort armies out before the day as I had no idea who would play
  • Too many players on a first run through.
  • Players not understanding the period and setting and treating certain units as they would any ancient units. Such as having the Hatamoto (Bodyguards) separate from their general. I had said they could go 12 away from the general to respond to threats to the general and players took that to mean they could go marauding all over the place as long as the general tagged along. So again you can blame me as for this as I should have just said NO. But then you get into the conversation "Why can't they do that if the general might commit suicide anyway if we loose?" And as they did not know the setting or period they did approach the games with an occidental bias.
Overall the rules did work well and all the drawbacks were mainly because I was too soft. Maybe I should have just said 4 players Max!

Still done is done and it did fill the day with a game we all enjoyed (or seem to enjoy)


17 comments:

  1. It's hard to be popular. Rules are great to play, simple but demanding strategy. I'm hopefully playing today. In my last game I allowed 1 free reroll for activation each turn and it played much better but I think it was too many rerolls. This time I'm rolling 4 dice for the leader's stats and picking 3 for the ability and the 4th is the number of rerolls allowed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Martin. The rules are great, I just needed to take more control if I am honest.

      Delete
  2. "Maybe I should have just said 4 players Max!"

    Yep, I think so. Cruel to be kind, as they say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Roy.
      20/20 hind sight is wonderful vision.

      Delete
  3. I'm a big fan of these rules. Simple, flexible and easy to adapt whilst offering plenty of tactical choices. To be honest, we've not found the 'not activating and ending your turn' thing a problem in two player games as you usually only have a half-dozen units per warband and quickly learn to activate those with the best chance first. I can imagine it is a bit more of an issue with more players/bigger armies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Gordon
      To be fair it was a combination of different things. yes I can see the rules working very well. It is as much a problem with the number of players who wanted to play in a "big Battle", my in experience with the rules and the players not understanding the period.

      The rules did work well and I will use them again, but I will need to set the game up better and not allow more players than I am comfortable with to join in. At least on a first time out!

      Delete
  4. Valiant effort Clint. Next time why not set up two smaller games? It is a tough balance, and very hard to get the balance right. You'll be in better prep next time round.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Peter you are of course correct. But or club games we just don't want people sitting around with no game to join in. I can see the rules working incredibly well for Lord of the Rings for example. I probably just over reached this time.

      Delete
  5. "But ended up with 7 players and at least one more wanting to pay." Nice one, turning it in to a business!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Fran. They want me to put on a SCW game next time.

      Delete
  6. Cool write up and honest analysis. Larger groups do sometimes have their drawbacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Lee. It would be less of a problem IF I had time to sort out forces and if I had known the rules a little better. I did mostly know the rules it was just Morale checks I was shaky on. Still things to think on and improve for next time.

      The biggest drawback was people not knowing the period and Samurai warfare. I made the wrong assumptions and thought they might know something. Alas they did not. Still not a disaster at least.

      Delete
  7. Ah, that brings back many memories of trying to run games with too many players! Well done for trying and I hope everyone (apart from you, I suspect) enjoyed themselves anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks C6. It could have gone better, but it could easily have gone MUCH worse.

      Delete
  8. 're obviously too popular for your own good! With a new set of rules, 1 or 2 new players is enough imo and possibly have 2 games, swapping players around, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'd still bet that everyone (including yourself) enjouyed it and had fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Joe. Fewer people would have been easier and less stressful. Still life is a learning experience.

      Delete
  9. Plenty of people interested though. It could make a good campaign game with it if its possible to setup

    ReplyDelete

Please feel free to leave a comment.