Cause and Effect in Flames of War

In discussing game design, particularly designs that attempt to simulate some real-world subject, it's common to hear the terms "design for cause" and "design for effect." It's easiest to show what these terms mean with some examples.

In designing for effect the designer generally has an idea of how the game should play and creates a set of rules that will result in that effect. An example of designing for effect in a simulation would be to look at the historical outcome of a conflict and attempt to model a game that achieves the same result with the same inputs. For example, during the early part of WWII Germany often defeated more numerous and better equipped foes in battle. A designer designing for effect will tailor his rules so that the same result will happen in the game.

In designing for cause a designer focuses on the details of the game elements and lets them determine the ultimate effect. An example of this design would be a game that focuses on the armor thickness of tanks and the penetration ability of guns. Easily quantifiable causes.

Most game designs incorporate elements of both methods, and Flames of War is no different. I think it helps to understand how the game works, and why it sometimes doesn't, if you recognize which design theory different elements of the rules follow.

For the most part Flames of War follows the design for effect philosophy of design which is what causes some gamers coming from other historical games problems. Games like Command Decision and other older systems tend to more closely follow the design for cause philosophy. The rule that states that it's the targets skill level that determines the number needed to hit is a classic example of design for effect. It's non-intuitive, but it results in the effect that the designer intended while still being simple to use.