The Forge Archives

Toying a bit with NeverwinterNights (a computer game using the D&D rules) got me wondering: are RPGs "gamer's games" ?

Taken literally, I suppose the answer would be yes, because all roleplayers I know qualify as "serious" (as opposed to casual) gamers(*).

However, the usual definition of a gamer's game is a game whose appeal is in the dry strategic thinking required for competent play (for instance, games like Diplomacy or Euphrates&Tigris are gamer's games while Settlers of Catan or Formula Dé are not).

Given that definition, it seems to me that even the most Gamist rpgs lack the layer of strategic thinking that would make them attractive to hardcore gamers.  For instance, D&D as a wargame (as far as I can judge from the NwN computer game) doesn't appear very deep, it has lots of crunchy bits ("chrome" in wargamer's jargon), but the mechanisms themselves do not really encourage strategic thinking during play (though I suppose the long-term choices of improvement/feats etc. for one's character do count as strategy of sorts).



My point (if I need one): if contests are at the heart of Gamism, then shouldn't Gamist games drop the "pile the bonuses, roll the die" systems and instead use more involved systems that force the player to think more about his decisions and try anticipate the opponent's ?




(*) I'm not counting those who play Monopoly: the RPG, for simplicity.

Hi there,

In a word, yes. I agree with you, and thanks for being so clear about what you describe as a "gamer's game." "Gamist design" would probably be the closest term 'round here.

Here are some titles that are worth checking out, not necessarily meeting your call to action, but some perhaps. In no particular order:

Tunnels & Trolls
Tomb Reavers
Elfs
Rune
Shadowrun
Donjon
Deathstalkers
Kobolds Ate My Baby!
Ninja Burger (same system as KAMB)
Age of Heroes

As well as some not-quite but-almost-sorta role-playing games:
Bedlam
The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen
Pantheon
Once Upon a Time

Best,
Ron

Hi Thierry,

Yes, yes, and yes.  As someone who enjoys gamist play, I find the lack of strategic games and strategic thought in general to be absolutely irritating.  The typical "strategy" shown in many rpgs has to do with character creation, that is, "How can I choose set list of powers, skills, and funky attributes so that I can min/max during play?"   While this certainly gives a similar satisfaction to a collectible card gamer building the "killer deck", this doesn't follow through with the same kind of strategy in play.

Sadly enough, I've found more strategy involved in console videogame "rpgs" than in some of the ones available on the market.  Most literally come down to Fight, Run, Use ability/spell/item.  

Games which have good "in play" strategy to me, that may interest you:

-Marvel's Saga system
-The Riddle of Steel
-Dust Devils(well, it is poker, right?)
-Zenobia

Chris

I'll add D&D. Do you drink the healing potions now after each player has only taken a couple of points of damage, or risk waiting until later when they may be more effective? Is this weak foe worth wasting a fireball on? D&D is all about the strategic use of resources.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesI'll add D&D. Do you drink the healing potions now after each player has only taken a couple of points of damage, or risk waiting until later when they may be more effective? Is this weak foe worth wasting a fireball on? D&D is all about the strategic use of resources.

Mike

I'll support this. It's even more so with 3E's Attacks of Opportunity and other position-based and surprise-based bonuses. D&D is such that five smart kobolds with bows in the forest could possibly kill a party of higher-level PCs with poor tactics.

Hello,

I'd really appreciate it if people using "D&D" as a reference could specify which year and author of which publication they're talking about. Even if you think that the blanket term is good enough for your point (whatever it might be), I don't.

Jay's specification to 3E with an example, for instance, is just what I'm looking for.

Best,
Ron

So if I mean "all versions of D&D" I have to write that all out each time?

OK.

Mike

Back to gamism per se, I think that increasing the complexity of "crunchy bits" would help, in some respects, but one of the nicest things about RPGs is that you can jump over this hurdle if you like.

First, why is it a hurdle?  Well, if you figure that the ultimate wargame is an actual war, which seems to be how West Point and so forth see such games, then there is this limitation on wargames: they can never factor in everything, because real life cannot be reduced to numbers in that fashion.  So what you do is develop a simulation (not a Sim game) which is so sophisticated that you create the illusion of reality, but everyone knows the rules so they are aware of just how far they can push it.

I think strategic-level thinking, as well as tactical-level thinking, is ultimately going to come down to nothing more (and nothing less) than this: what is everyone else going to do for the remainder of the game, given what I would like to achieve, and how I intend to effect those goals?

So why not cut to the chase?  This is something I'm currently tinkering with in Shadows in the Fog, oddly enough.  I want players and characters strategizing deeply about long-term and short-term goals, and thinking seriously about resources for those ends.  The thing is, the resources are extremely fluid, dependent on convincing the others that you have deployed them effectively.  So you move directly to the strategy, without worrying about the crunchy bits.

I don't know.  I suspect that wargamers like the crunchy bits more than this, so they may not be attracted to SitF on that basis.  But I'm hoping that RPG players will be able to find their inner Gamist while also enjoying other modes of RPG play.

Does this make any sense?  Is it thread-hijack?  Hope not.  Of the latter, I mean.  :)

When I was playing in a hybridized AD&D1, I brought a tremendous amount of tactical thinking to the game.

I was leader of a party of upwards of twenty characters. I created an internal subcommand structure and units capable of independent action within a plan. I devised and taught several different strategies to use in combat. I placed great emphasis on the importance of ranged combat and spell support. Many of my battle plans involved splitting up the party. In one, a small contingent of the party was used as a lure to draw the enemy into an ambush; in another, part of the party was ordered to a far flanking position from which they would be able to get around the enemy and cut off their retreat. I gave specific attention to the strengths and weaknesses of each member of the group in the light of the needs of the whole, assigning individuals to spell, ranged, or melee positions on that basis. I took advantage of terrain features such as cover and concealment when they were available.

My basis for this was that my character was a trained warrior, and he was going to fight smart; that meant he was going to use everything to best advantage during combat. I spent a lot of time working out how I would attack a party such as mine, and from that what I could do to defend against those attacks.

I think that the amount of strategy in many role playing games depends on whether the players care. With as few as three characters, I can devise strategies that take advantage of their strengths and protect their weaknesses. Most players, even with thirty at the table, don't enjoy that aspect of play, and would rather just tear into the enemy and hope that the referee has given them something they can beat.

There are several types of "serious" gamers. There are those who are seriously intent on winning games; there are those who are only intent on playing them. There are a lot of serious golfers out there who play every weekend, who aren't really dedicated to improving their game--they play for the exercise and the fresh air and maybe just getting out of the house. There are a lot of serious roleplayers who don't play to win, or who want to win without having to think about strategy in any depth. Some of them are indeed gamist players, in that they expect the game to be a challenge; they just don't want it to be so great a challenge on that intellectual/tactical level.

Craps is a challenging gamist game. The amount of strategy involved for the person throwing the dice is pretty limited; he still plays to win.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: clehrichDoes this make any sense?  Is it thread-hijack?

Yes and no. Crunchy bits or chrome do not add layers of strategy, in fact  by complicating the prediction of the outcomes they  make arguably the game less strategic, not more. The ultimate gamer's game for me is go, who is also the simplest strategic game in term of rules.

Quote from: M. J. YoungThere are a lot of serious roleplayers who don't play to win, or who want to win without having to think about strategy in any depth. Some of them are indeed gamist players, in that they expect the game to be a challenge; they just don't want it to be so great a challenge on that intellectual/tactical level.

Agreed, and that was what I was trying to understand in the Gamism definition - it doesn't require a strategic challenge.

Quote from: Thierry MichelMy point (if I need one): if contests are at the heart of Gamism, then shouldn't Gamist games drop the "pile the bonuses, roll the die" systems and instead use more involved systems that force the player to think more about his decisions and try anticipate the opponent's ?

HeroClix I guess would be an example?

Quote from: Thierry MichelYes and no. Crunchy bits or chrome do not add layers of strategy, in fact  by complicating the prediction of the outcomes they  make arguably the game less strategic, not more. The ultimate gamer's game for me is go, who is also the simplest strategic game in term of rules.

I disagree. Well, for certain gamers obviously this is true. But then why, when I think of Gamers, do I think of complicated wargames?

I can't speak for the French perspective, but a Gamer here is more likely to be involved in something with a lot of layers. Why? Because I think they have a heavy Sim streak running in them. For example, I can't stand GO, because there's no simulative elements (sure one can imagine it's a battle, but it doesn't even support that well). When adding layers, what happens is that, theoretically and if done right, then "realistic" solutions to problems are what wins games. The more abstract you go, the more you tend to find that solutions that have noting to do with the simulation in question are the ones that win.

This is why Ralph hates Clix. There are abstractions in the movement and initiative that really bug him. Why? Because they create battles that don't have the "feel" of a superhero battle (or any battle, really).

In point of fact, I have friends who categorize games like Settlers of Catan, and the like as AGGs (Abstract German Games). And some won't play them at all because of the abstractions (these guys' sometimes refer to them as SAGs: Silly-Ass Games). Funny, but Ralph seems to like those...

So, for some people who seek very abstract challenges, this is true. But don't throw "Gamers" as a whole into this category.

Mike

QuoteFunny, but Ralph seems to like those

Heh.  Two key difference.  The "german style" abstract games almost always have rules that work VERY well even when it seems unlikely from just reading them.  Clix rules, OTH suck...sim or not, its just a painful game to play.  Second.  The German games are quite up front about what they are.  Abstract exercises in strategy overlayed with a theme for some interesting color.  The god of such games Reiner is quite open about this.  Every one of his games could have its color removed and still be a playable game.  Settlers of Cataan could be called...Hex Map and Dice Game where you collect widgets to build the longest line of blocks and it still works.  Clix on the other hand goes so far as to get itself categorized as a Miniatures Wargame in convention catalogs...feh.  I invented better wargame rules for playing with army men when I was 8.

Thierry,

I'm not certain I agree with the assessment that more complication or uncertainty makes a game less of a gamer's game, and thus GO is the ultimate game of this type.

When I think of Gamism, I always think of two primary examples: Chess and Risk. Mainly because I really like both of these games. Moving away from board-based games, I would add both Poker and Blackjack...and actually, I would add Magic: the Gathering to that list as well.

These games are not as simple as Go, but they define for me the element of tactical strategizing I desire in my games, as well as the complexity. Go, quite honestly, bores the hell out of me.

I agree with your overall assessment, however, about bonuses not equating Gamist play. In the traditional games, most of those tactical decisions occur in character creation and advancement: actual play is simply "roll, hit/miss, damage; repeat to win" with a few points of decision that are not the focus of play.

So, while it is correct that having to choose whether or not to drink the potion is a use of strategy, I don't know that it counts for me because of one question I always ask myself when playing: why do I feel I need so many more options than those already available to me (of which there are certainly a plethora)?

Perhaps it is because the feeling is that the results are somewhat more preordained than if the options available had an effect on the overall course of the challenge? Or maybe I'm completely wrong.

Certainly, D&D (especially 3E) has more tactical options available to the role-player than Neverwinter Nights actually allows, due to the nature of the "real-time" combat in NWN and the nature of "round-by-round" combat in any edition of D&D. Compared, these methods of resolution are "point-and-click" and "sit-and-think" and have such incredibly different feel and play from one another than you might guess.

Thinking about crunchy bits in games, I think they have the potential to enhance tactical/strategic elements in the game.  However, they don't always succeed in doing so.

Ideally, well-done crunchy bits add new options in the game.  A game like Go gives you a small set of options.  Chess has many different pieces, and thus more strategies.  By the time you get to Warhammer level,  you've got a practically infinite number of options and crunchy bits.

However, where some games go wrong is by adding crunchy bits that eliminate the usefulness of others.  Magic is a great example.  Many cards are never used, either because there are more effective cards of that type or because the effects are so specific you can't count on being able to use them in a real game.  A lot of RPGs do this in weapon and armor selection - you've got 40 varieties of each, but all you want is the one with the highest AC and damage.

I think that a good gamer's game is one in which you cannot compare two characters (or pieces) and simply state which one will win.  You have to qualify it by asking what the situation is.  For example, a queen in ches is consiered better than the pawn.  But a pawn in the right place can kill a queen or become a queen, so you can't say "Queens always beat pawns."  Likewise in an RPG.  If you look at two characters, you should have to ask "Where are they?  What are they doing when they fight?" before you can say which one will win.  In Settlers of Cataan, you can't simply state the value of a sheep, either.  It totally depends on how much people need it.

This isn't unpredictable doubt, however.  I'm not talking about merely rolling dice to see who wins.  It's all about the situation, just like in the queen/pawn example.  The better gamer understands how the crunchy bits work, gets in position to use certain bits, and then reaps the benefits.

QuoteI think that a good gamer's game is one in which you cannot compare two characters (or pieces) and simply state which one will win.

Right, for me, a good gamist game gives multiple strategies to success.  While you're correct that Magic does have useless cards, it also has at least 3-5 general strategies that can be employed successfully.  

QuoteIn the traditional games, most of those tactical decisions occur in character creation and advancement: actual play is simply "roll, hit/miss, damage; repeat to win" with a few points of decision that are not the focus of play.

Right, this is the part that leaves me unsatsified as a Gamist.  I guess this is why ROS really works for me.  It's the ability to alter or adapt one's strategies during play that makes it fly for me.

Chris

Quote from: jdagnaIdeally, well-done crunchy bits add new options in the game.  A game like Go gives you a small set of options.  Chess has many different pieces, and thus more strategies.  By the time you get to Warhammer level,  you've got a practically infinite number of options and crunchy bits.

And yet in your example the game with the most strategic depth is go, then chess then warhammer (well, I never tried Warhammer, but seeing people playing it, they didn't seem to agonize over their decisions).

Now, I agree that my definition of gamer's games is quite restrictive, and thinking about it I'm not even sure that a non zero-sum game like a RPG could fit in (unless each conflict is taken as a sub-game in itself).

Quote from: Thierry MichelNow, I agree that my definition of gamer's games is quite restrictive, and thinking about it I'm not even sure that a non zero-sum game like a RPG could fit in (unless each conflict is taken as a sub-game in itself).

M.J.'s post about his use of AD&D1 is an excellent example of using RPGs for strategic play.  What's necessary seems to be an awareness of the factors involved in strategic situations: placement, terrain, formation, range, physics, suprise, moral, etc.  Is any of that incorporated into any the actual text of the many versions of D&D?  It seems more likely that individual participants would have to be informed about them on their own, and actively introduce these elements.  Designers can do the same, and presumably have in some of the games that have been listed in this thread.

I can see many RPG's really benefiting from this addition.  It would enhance any kind of gaming experience: sim since one could bring in setting/genre elements, narrativism since premise can be beautifully explored on the battlefield and narrativism is well-supported by good grounding in fidelity to setting, and gamism, for obvious reasons.

--Emily Care

Quote from: Thierry MichelAnd yet in your example the game with the most strategic depth is go, then chess then warhammer (well, I never tried Warhammer, but seeing people playing it, they didn't seem to agonize over their decisions).

That's an opinion, and a biased one at that, of a term that's undefined. What the hell is "strategic depth"? By Justin's definition, Warhammer is much more "Strategically deep", and I'd agree.

What happens at the level of a game like Warhammer is that most players become overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of possibilities and stop considering the moves of each individual unit in detail. Not that one couldn't. You can, actually play Warhammer with the same level of attention to detail that one does with chess or even GO (and I know some maniacs who are like this). It's really not that complicated, to do, actually, it just requires a silly amount of dedication. Way more than you need to play GO or Chess. At this rate of play turns take literally weeks to play out. The problem is that with the number of pieces, required space, etc, that it simply becomes impractical, and non-fun.

So instead people emply macro-strategies. Which is fun and appropriate for such a game. This is because the game is supposed to be a simulation of a battle. And in a battle you don't have hours to plan the movement of each unit. As such, if you want to simulate being the commander, you have to make decisions in shorter order like a commander would.

Interestingly, this is somewhat akin to the difference beteen trying to do atomic physics and classical physics. That is, it's very hard to predict what just one atom will do. And you can study it all day, and think about it a lot and get a lot out of that study. With a bowl of water molecules, however, it's more interesting to consider them in terms of how they behave as a unit. In fact, the more complexity you add in terms of numbers, the more predictable the system gets (this is the principle behind Assimov's psychohistory).

Anyhow, what that means is that you can have as many coherent theories about these things at both levels (if adding more elements made a game respond more complexly they'd become unplayable with any meaning).

In point of fact, GO is a "solved" game via game theory. There's a best way to play, and we know it; just like tic-tac-toe. Chess is not (though we can prove that there must actually be a solution that allows the player that goes first to always win), and even less so is Warhammer. Von Neuman proved that for Zero Sum games there must be a solution; though not always what the solution must be.

What you get from GO, I think is a great rate of Strategy per unit of Complexity. That makes it  perhaps the most elegant game (repeat the mantra,"Easy to learn, difficult to master"). Which appeals to some purists. But then you've got purists like me for whom a game of Star Fleet Battles is the Best game because it's the most complex game ever built. Or, in terms of pure resources complexity, the Europa series of wargames or it's immitators.

These are the "ultimate"for us precisely because of thier complexity. It takes as much effort to discover the strategy as it does to figure out the best employment of it.

Note that most people who call themselves Gamers actually prefer somthing in between. So in terms of play the Ultimate Gamer's Game is...I dunno, poker?

But that's non Zero Sum. So, you're right that opens up a whole new can of worms. :-)

Mike

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: Thierry MichelAnd yet in your example the game with the most strategic depth is go, then chess then warhammer (well, I never tried Warhammer, but seeing people playing it, they didn't seem to agonize over their decisions).

That's an opinion, and a biased one at that, of a term that's undefined. What the hell is "strategic depth"? By Justin's definition, Warhammer is much more "Strategically deep", and I'd agree.

I'd disagree, but then I take my definition of terms like "Strategy", "Tactics", and "Logistics" from Clauswitz and Military History.  To me, GO is a far more strategic game than Warhammer, while Warhammer, because of the crunchy bits, is more a game of Tactics - localized applications of force, as opposed to larger recognition of hte influence of outside, thinly related events.

Or something like that ^_^

-jeffrey "still only a 29 koa" miller-

Hello,

I'm sure there are forums which permit folks to discuss Go and chess per se to their hearts' content.

Please use this one to address the issues of strategy, tactics, and related whatnot regarding role-playing games. Other games' features certainly can be used for comparison or suggestion. However, I request a little focus back on the original question.

Best,
Ron

Sorry, Ron - I thought we had drifted into legitimate territory of defining terms.  ObMyBad

-j-

Quote from: Mike HolmesWhat happens at the level of a game like Warhammer is that most players become overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of possibilities and stop considering the moves of each individual unit in detail. Not that one couldn't. You can, actually play Warhammer with the same level of attention to detail that one does with chess or even GO (and I know some maniacs who are like this).  

Hmm.  I haven't played Warhammer, but I am usually far more overwhelmed with choices in a Go game than in an RPG (like say D&D3).  It doesn't seem to me that you really have more choices.  In a Go game there are generally hundreds of options available (max 361, decreasing slowly as the game progresses).  An RPG may exceed this in some cases (say for a high-level D&D wizard), but often it is significantly less.  

In addition to the number of options, there is the question of how easily you can reduce those options.  So factors include:  (1) the number of options on any given round, (2) how easily those options can be eliminated, and (3) the depth to which you need to consider each move -- i.e. you look at that move, and then think about what the result will be ten rounds later.  My experience of RPGs is that you don't have to look as deeply as you do in Go.  While opponent selection is important, mostly you take the option which will maximize your average damage dealt.  In Go, you might have to look ahead nine or more moves to see whether a given stone will help or hurt your position.  

Quote from: Mike HolmesIn point of fact, GO is a "solved" game via game theory. There's a best way to play, and we know it; just like tic-tac-toe.
...
What you get from GO, I think is a great rate of Strategy per unit of Complexity. That makes it  perhaps the most elegant game (repeat the mantra,"Easy to learn, difficult to master"). Which appeals to some purists. But then you've got purists like me for whom a game of Star Fleet Battles is the Best game because it's the most complex game ever built.

Hmmm.  Go may be "solved" in a theoretical sense, but that doesn't matter for human players if you cannot calculate the optimum move in a reasonable time.  In fact, computer Go programs have been far less successful than computer chess programs.  I would guess the main reason that SFB isn't solved isn't necessarily because it is more strategically deep -- but simply because there are far fewer people interested in solving it, and they have far less time and resources.

Now, SFB is a strategically deep game.  However, that didn't result from just piling on additional rules.  Added rules complexity frequently lessens strategic depth rather than increasing it -- because of loopholes or simple escalation involved.  A newly-added option can easily be a clearly better choice than two previous options (cf. Magic: The Gathering).  The nice thing about SFB is it's pool of players who will seriously playtest supplements and give feedback, which the designers actually listen to (albeit giving a lot of nasty attitude to some of them).  I think of it as a game which has organically evolved thanks to a community of players.

Quote from: Thierry Michel
Yes and no. Crunchy bits or chrome do not add layers of strategy, in fact  by complicating the prediction of the outcomes they  make arguably the game less strategic, not more. The ultimate gamer's game for me is go, who is also the simplest strategic game in term of rules.

Hey, Thierry, this is a timely thread for me, because I've been thinking about how to hook a couple of my "serious gamer" (RISK, Axis & Allies, etc.) buddies into a role-playing game. I think you're not quite accurate about Go, though. It's true that you can have strategic depth without crunchy bits. But all crunchy bits are not created equal. Crunchy bits can add strategic depth, or they can obscure existing strategic depth. (Both of these possibilities have their champions.)

In a Gamism sense, I think crunchy bits are bad only if they remove strategic depth, or exist separately from strategic depth. In an enjoyment sense, I think crunchy bits are bad if your target audience doesn't like math. :)

(Raven & co, I can't believe Go bores you. You obviously haven't had enough exposure to it. Drop by sometime and I'll show you the error of your ways. I await your pleasure on the field of PM. ;)

I have to answer this one here, though, cos it's relevant to the question:

Quote from: Mike
"That's an opinion, and a biased one at that, of a term that's undefined. What the hell is "strategic depth"? By Justin's definition, Warhammer is much more "Strategically deep", and I'd agree."

Mike, it's not really an opinion, but it seems like you're unfamiliar with strategic depth.

It's like this:

A strategic game is one in which players make choices, where the quality of the choices determines the outcome of the game, right?

The more weight each choice has (the fewer random factors and so on), and the more options there are to choose from, the more strategic the game.

Go and Chess are similar in that both are pure strategy . . . there are no outside influences, no random factors, only player choice. But Go has more strategic depth. Strategic depth is like layering.

In Go there are 361 choices for the first move. The estimated number of lines of play in Go is greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. An estimate is all we have, because modern computing equipment would take billions of years to search the tree to make sure. Go is the closest thing we have to an infinite game-space.

(Well, in fact, it is infinite, because if we ever get close to solving what we have, the board can be enlarged without altering the rules in any way. Well, the komi might need to be enlarged.)

In chess there are 20 choices for the first move. As you progress into the middlegame, there are slightly more choices per move, which is then reduced again as you enter the endgame. (I forget the exact numbers, it's been a while, but I think that the average was somewhere around 30 or 40 legal moves per position.)

"Stratetic depth" isn't a judgement of value, or a statement of interest. It's just an observation. Chess mathematically has less depth than Go.

This is why computers have solved Chess (using heuristics and search trees) to the point where the greatest Chess players alive are evenly matched, and even defeated - while the best Go program in the world can be beaten every time by low-level club players (15 kyu or so).

So, let's say that such layering is a given for a strategic game. How much depth do we really need? Tic Tac Toe obviously doesn't have enough - it's a trivial matter to run through the entire tree. Do we need as much as Go? I'm sure that the actual answer lies in a range of personally acceptable values. Too few and strategy is trivialized, because anyone can read out to the end. To many, and strategy is trivialized because no one can read ahead at all, and options are just chosen at random.

I think it's important to remember that role-playing is shared imagination. The gamist player doesn't want to play a strategy game (abstract or otherwise), he wants to engage in an act of shared imagining that prioritizes strategic elements (abstract of otherwise).

If the player *only* wanted abstract strategy, why is he playing an RPG in the first place? He'd be better off playing Go or Chess. If he only wanted simulatory strategy there are accurate war-sim games and accurate economy-sim games and so on.

Quote from: Kester PelagiusIf the player *only* wanted abstract strategy, why is he playing an RPG in the first place? He'd be better off playing Go or Chess. If he only wanted simulatory strategy there are accurate war-sim games and accurate economy-sim games and so on.

I think what's missing in much of this discussion is that there is another kind of strategy (or a lot more, depending).

Suppose we take for granted that Go is an infinite abstract strategic game.  If you don't like that, pick your favorite infinite abstract strategic game and go with that.

Now, let's think about how it works.  You have relatively few rules, and everything, but everything, depends upon how you think the other guy will act within those rules.  All strategy depends upon this: if the other guy doesn't matter, it's not much in the way of strategy.  That's why Poker is a strategic game: it includes bluffing, and bidding, and all sorts of tricks to lie about what your hand is.  Similarly in Go, you want the other guy to guess wrongly about what you're up to, and get caught in a ladder or some other fixed situation.

Now in RPGs, the whole issue of "the other guy" is transferred, because strategic RPG gaming is usually about us (the team) vs. him (the GM).  This need not be exactly the case, as the "other guy" could be other players, but this is relatively unusual.  At any rate, what makes it strategic is that you're trying to beat the other guy on a level playing field, by tricking him into making a mistake.

See, this is the nifty thing about abstract games as examples: because there are nearly infinite possible moves in Go, you beat the other guy by convincing him to beat himself.  In formal, tournament-style Go, you do this by lying with your pieces.  You trick him into thinking you're playing an aggressive game over here, when actually you're playing an attrition game over there, and so on.  The same is true of Chess.

Either way, in RPGs you can get straight to the point.  You try to trick the other guy, to lie to him to convince him to do something stupid.  Then you capitalize on the error and whomp him.

Why is everyone assuming that the parallel is combat?  It isn't, or not usually.  It's about power, pure and simple.  In a classic D&D game, if you want to do it hard Gamist, the object is to get to a high level for less risk than the other guy, or for less risk than the DM had planned.  In D&D, this usually involves combat issues, but that's specific to the game.  It's not fundamental.  What is fundamental, as I see it, is that you have to beat the "other guy."

So the first module, the DM provides weak traps.  You kick the crap out of them, and his monsters, so the next module he provides tougher ones.  Now the trick is to stay one jump ahead.  Any trick you use now, he'll counter the next time.  So if you've got a brilliant ace up your sleeve, you don't reveal it, because you want to use it against the mind flayers, and you wait for that, rather than using it against the kobolds.  It's a question of tricking the DM into thinking that he's got you pegged, where he can throw those mind flayers and have you run screaming.  Fat chance: you've got that ace, and you kick their asses, giving you lots of xp for very little outlay, giving you far more power (in terms of xp traded in for levels and thus combat power) than he had expected.

What does this look like out of combat?  Well, in Shadows in the Fog for example, you get to run roughshod over what the GM thought he had control of, or rewrite the universe.  Does this beat the GM?  Sort of.  But in a really good game, you're ultimately letting the character beat his peers, knocking the whole concept of balance into a cocked hat.  See, balance is a way of undermining or challenging the basic gamist concept, which is "we're all equally powerful, except me."

So let's set aside board games, and consider the ways in which a really effective gamist can kick the hell out of a game, and ask which RPGs are designed to give ammunition to the GM while providing as many aces to the clever player as possible.  Remember: beat the other guy.  That's all there is to strategic play, IMO.

Quote from: clehrich

Quote from: Kester PelagiusIf the player *only* wanted abstract strategy, why is he playing an RPG in the first place? He'd be better off playing Go or Chess. If he only wanted simulatory strategy there are accurate war-sim games and accurate economy-sim games and so on.

Just for the record, that was me that wrote that, not Kester. Unless I have some kind of split personality complex I don't know about. :)

Other than that, good post. Lots to chew over.

Quote from: clehrichWhat is fundamental, as I see it, is that you have to beat the "other guy."

Interesting post, the problem I see is that there's an asymmetry between the players and the GM.

If I remember correctly, a game like Rune acknowledges that asymmetry by scoring for the GM when the players make it alive, but barely. In fact, Rune represents a pure Gamist, almost a skirmish wargame with points for balance and a turning GM (but I'm not sure anybody really plays it that way).

This approach is perfectly valid, but a skirmish wargame is still as much  a simulation as a game (hence the disdain of purists for "gamey" tactics like anchoring your flank to the map edge ).

Quote from: clehrich
So let's set aside board games, and consider the ways in which a really effective gamist can kick the hell out of a game, and ask which RPGs are designed to give ammunition to the GM while providing as many aces to the clever player as possible.  Remember: beat the other guy.  That's all there is to strategic play, IMO.

Thanks for raising the bar, again.  

Yes, combat isn't the only way. Power, politics, romance, pick your battlefield, so to speak.  My first thought was Amber.

It may be limiting to think of strategy as all about competition. (that may not be what you intend, either) Goals do seem to be requisite.  I think that one requirement for something to technically be a "game" is for it to have victory conditions.  These need not be competitive against anyone else (think solitaire), but that certainly is where a lot of the enjoyment comes in.  

What is intriguing about this whole discussion of strategy to me (as very much a non-gamist gamer) is the idea of complexity and (what's another word for what I'm talking about-ack) strategy.  The concept of accepting a system, a set of rules, and competing within those rules.  Of being able to successfully accomplish a given goal, be it kicking someone's butt (in-game or without),  or unraveling a mystery.  Ah, wait a minute there--I don't think of a mystery as having strategy.  There need be no resources to allocate, no weaknesses to identify and exploit. So opposition is necessary.  But what seems important about it to me is the navigation of the system.  

Games with just a victory condition, and no strategic decisions are boring.  Monopoly without the real estate is like playing Parcheesi. You know you're going to get there, it's just a question of when and who is first.  It's a race.  The strategy of investing etc. is what gives the competition interest. Maybe strategy is simply competition with variables that must be managed, and quantifyable challenges to be met...

And what games are suited? What kinds of games would give this?  I believe Lumpley had a game in mind in the long forgotten past based on Dangerous Liasons.  Ideal.  

The question I have is this: How in designing a game can one identify discreet elements, parameters and courses of action that allow one to experience the good stuff of strategic thinking (using a system to it's fullest extent, making informed decisions, taking risks and having it pay off, etc) without dissolving into hopeless munchkinism?  How to design a game or what game has been design to harness those rules-lawyery-leanings or just anyone's innate desire for a compex challenge into roleplaying?

Regards,
Emily Care


ps Paganini thank you for your post on go. absolutely. yes.

Quote from: Emily Care
The question I have is this: How in designing a game can one identify discreet elements, parameters and courses of action that allow one to experience the good stuff of strategic thinking (using a system to it's fullest extent, making informed decisions, taking risks and having it pay off, etc) without dissolving into hopeless munchkinism?  How to design a game or what game has been design to harness those rules-lawyery-leanings or just anyone's innate desire for a compex challenge into roleplaying?

Emily,

I'm an avowed munchkin.  It's all about getting the maximum character efficiency within the system in order to own the other players and the pathetic challenges the GM comes up with.

Okay, maybe I don't play with quite that much competitive spirit - but the main element is design structure.  Designs that facilitate good strategic play without descending into munchkinism only type play are games without break-points, layering and currency transfer issues - particularly at character generation.  Any of these things in the system will be immedaite attractors to players like myself - and we will work out how to take advantage of them - because a lot of the strategic play in RPG's happens during character creation.  Then, in order to add strategic elements in play, the players need to be given some set of resoruces or options that they manage during the course of play - resources that hopefully provide the "what will it cost me later to do this now" variety and options that have an actual impact on the moment at hand "if I pick the right option relative to my opponents, I should win 9 times out of 10".

Now, I've never played but have read in depth two games that I think would provide some solid strategic play during actual play: Nobilis and The Riddle of Steel.  Essential to both games are the resources that the players need to manage for their characters - Miracle Points in Nobilis and Spiritual Attributes in TROS.  TROS has the added element of maneuvers in combat.  These maneuvers add a timinig element - when is the best time to do maneuver x in order to gain the most advantage - that a lot of other combat systems are lacking.

Cheers,



Jason

[quote="Emily Care]The question I have is this: How in designing a game can one identify discreet elements, parameters and courses of action that allow one to experience the good stuff of strategic thinking (using a system to it's fullest extent, making informed decisions, taking risks and having it pay off, etc) without dissolving into hopeless munchkinism?  How to design a game or what game has been design to harness those rules-lawyery-leanings or just anyone's innate desire for a compex challenge into roleplaying?[/quote]

I'm not sure how generalized an example I can give you, but I can provide two specific ones from my game.

First is a combat example.  Characters get two normal actions per round and one interrupt action.  Wise utilization of the interrupt action is key to strategy.  With it, you can interrupt another person's action - so most people use it to duck behind stuff before they get shot.  But... if you squander your interrupt early in the round, you may be left as a sitting duck later.  So you've got lots of decisions to make and no white and black answers as to what's best (because you have limited information about the situation).  There's also a very effective wait action if you think you know what the enemy is going to do next.

Second is a social example.  There are a lot of social modifiers representing character approach and NPC attitudes.  In bribery, two things are most important: the potential reward (the bribe) and the potential consquences (and likelihood of suffering them).  Players can often greatly reduce the bribe price by offering to help NPCs escape the consequences.  Saving money is obviously a good thing... but if you just bribed Joe to kill his boss, do you really want to show him your secret hideout so he can avoid being arrested?

I think this avoids munchkinism because most of the factors are rooted in the setting, not some sort of player creation currency.  This way, the GM has influence both over the intial setting and the potential consequences.  I think it encourages strategy, because it offers multiple options that seem equally viable from the rules' point of view.  The die roll doesn't change, just the potential consequences down the line.

Quote from: PaganiniMike, it's not really an opinion, but it seems like you're unfamiliar with strategic depth.

Um, no.

We just disagree as to what it means.

361 moves is paltry. Condisder your average wargame that uses freform movement (no hexes or anything) by inches, like Warhammer. There are literally an infinite number of angles that I can move that unit upon. And there are infinite numbers of potential responses. There are some simple calculations regarding vectors as to ranges and such, but these are endlessly complicated. Terrain? Armor ratings? Unit density. Area effect weaponry. Even in a game like SFB with hexes, there are literally dozens of things that I can do in a turn, and thousands in combinations (anyone for plannig a high speed turn onto a dropped shield after weapons fire and deploying T-Bombs into the enemy hex? Think they'll fall for it?). More if you consider refinements.

Before anyone claims that some of the combinations are obviously dumb, and don't count, then answer me how many of the 361 first moves of Go are also dumb. And later, when there are less choices, how many more become dumb by incremets. Let's compare apples to apples.

Many rules all in conjunction make play more complicated in general. Sure there are occasions where some rules actually make the obvious choice easier. But most games avoid these like the plague. Most additional rules are included because they add possible sorts of actions.

Randomization makes things less complicated? Far from it. Since one can do the math on probabilities, randomization just becomes another thing that you have to plan for. In fact there are several principles involved, but here are two important ones. First a knowledge of the expected value is important so that you can make plans based on what progress you can expect to make given a particular plan of action. Then there's the worst case scenario analysis which is also taken into account with any die roll. These factors make decisions that much more difficut, not simpler (and anyone who ignores them is going to get his hat handed to him by the player that pays attention).

No, it seems to me that you are the one that's really unfamiliar with the sort of things that can add to stratigic depth, Nathan. If you don't want to acknowledge that these things are all important to the discussion, then, well, as I've said, we've a difference of opinion.

To bring this back on topic, the very reason I play RPGs is because they have an infinite number of possible actions. Your character can do anything at any time. I mean, when the winning move could be "quack like a duck", how can you say otherwise? And often you choose your own victory conditions. Lot's of gamers see RPGs as the "Ultimate Gamers Game" for just this reason.

But for the most part I think it's a pointless question. RPGs are for people who like RPGs, and GO is for people who like GO. Why does it matter if one is superior to another according to some odd definition of some pointless term? Are we hoping that GO players are an untapped market for playing RPGs?

Mike

Mike,

Uh... I'm not sure what you're arguing with. You calimed that you disagree with me about what strategic depth means, but your comments about Warhammer use exactly the terms I presented. You haven't said anything that I disagree with here. (Well, except that 361 is not really paltry. It's a lot, compared to other abstract strategy games. Chess, for example.) As far as I know, no one is claiming that Go has more strategic depth than RPGs. The question was about how crunchy bits relate to strategic depth. The answer is that crunchy bits can add strategic depth, or they can remove strategic depth, depending on how they're implimented.

As for your Warhammer example, I'd want to add the restriction that only meaningful moves contribute to strategic depth. Not all moves in Go are good moves, but every move has an actual effect on the game.

In theory, you do have an infinite number of moves in a Warhammer battle, but given the scale of the game, only a fraction of those moves are of distinguishable value. (I.e., at Warhammer scale, it doesn't really make a difference if you move forward at 90 degrees or 91 degrees - so it's not really fair to count them as separate potential moves for the sake of determining strategic depth.)

I don't know how much strategic depth Go has when compared to Warhammer - the data isn't there for the comparison, since no one has ever tried to crack Warhammer that I know of - but I don't really care. The important thing is not "which one is deeper," but "what range of depth is needed for satisfying Gamism?"

Quote from: Emily CareHow in designing a game can one identify discreet elements, parameters and courses of action that allow one to experience the good stuff of strategic thinking (using a system to it's fullest extent, making informed decisions, taking risks and having it pay off, etc) without dissolving into hopeless munchkinism?  

I would expect Gamist players to be ruthless optimizers of their characters, but I don't see it as a bad thing in itself. The problem arises when the game rewards the player who knows the rules best (or more precisely, all of the exceptions and crunchy bits) over the player who tries to think strategically, and I suppose that's what you mean by 'hopeless munchkinism'. The obvious counterploy is to try to design every additional crunchy bit such as it adds new tactical options if one is so inclined, but does not disturb play balance - make everything above the core mechanics optional somehow.

I don't suppose it will be surprising to people to learn that the new essay provides no less than five meanings for the word "munchkin," some of which operate at very different levels and for different purposes from the others.

So maybe it would be good to specify exactly what one means when using the word - 'cause Inigo is right about that, yet again.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Thierry MichelI would expect Gamist players to be ruthless optimizers of their characters, but I don't see it as a bad thing in itself. The problem arises when the game rewards the player who knows the rules best (or more precisely, all of the exceptions and crunchy bits) over the player who tries to think strategically, and I suppose that's what you mean by 'hopeless munchkinism'.

Good question.  Thank you for clarifying my hazy use of the term.

I think you hit on something important:
"the game rewards the player who knows the rules best (or rather all of the exceptions and crunchy bits)"

In the normal course of things, most games will give rewards for knowing and using the rules. That's not a problem in and of itself. However, if the rules are obfuscatory or complex enough that it's difficult for everyone to have the same level of understanding of them and there are substantial rewards for knowing the ins and outs, then that's suboptimal design for enjoyable strategic play.  

Crunchy bits are number crunching, right?  That could be an obstacle to understanding.  It makes sense why the classic strategic games are simple.  There is a world of difference between someone using known, clear rules to exploit an opening you leave them, and having someone pull a loophole out of the bag to best you.  It feels like cheating if you didn't have access to the same information.  Ah, this is the play balance portion of the gamist program.  

I look forward to reading about the 5 forms of munchies.  Having them to refer to will help avoid confusion. Are they like the five deadly venoms? (sorry, I couldn't resist...)

--EC

Quote from: Emily CareThere is a world of difference between someone using known, clear rules to exploit an opening you leave them, and having someone pull a loophole out of the bag to best you.  It feels like cheating if you didn't have access to the same information.  

But the problem arises simply from the "any action is possible"  nature of RPGS.  If you pull off the winning move 'quack like a duck' how am I supposed to anticipate it in my strategy ? I see munchkinism as a (maybe hopeless) tentative to formalize as many choices as possible within the rules  (so you can tell your opponent to refer to 6.34.a - duck sounds, 2nd paragraph: mallard).

It doesn't have to be that way, though, one could also imagine an abstract resolution system where in fact "every possible action" amounts to the same trade-offs and the descriptions  are just for colour. A kind of Gamist Hero Wars, I suppose.

Quote from: Thierry Michel

Quote from: Emily CareThere is a world of difference between someone using known, clear rules to exploit an opening you leave them, and having someone pull a loophole out of the bag to best you.  It feels like cheating if you didn't have access to the same information.  

But the problem arises simply from the "any action is possible"  nature of RPGS.  If you pull off the winning move 'quack like a duck' how am I supposed to anticipate it in my strategy ? I see munchkinism as a (maybe hopeless) tentative to formalize as many choices as possible within the rules  (so you can tell your opponent to refer to 6.34.a - duck sounds, 2nd paragraph: mallard).

Thierry, this is kind of what I was getting at in my other thread. "Quack like a duck" can't be a winning move unless it really is a winning move. It's not the quacking itself that's important; there has to be something that defines it as a winning move. It has to have some identifiable game effect *beyond* just realizing the event "Thierry quacks like a duck" within the fictional reality.

That's the idea I was exploring for elsewhere. In the context of the fictional reality, what exists for the players to put on the line, to potentially lose or gain? If you think traditionally, you've got life or death of character, riches, glory, etc. etc. But these things are all just ways to represent pure Lumpley Principle Credibility. In Ben Lehman's terms, they all "represent power." This is the actual guts of "how Gamism works," in my view.

Think of it this way:

Winning or losing a game of RISK is the social prestiege element that Ron's talking about.  There's some, maybe small, social conflict at stake. You want to outdo your friends. They want to outdo you. Credibility is the countries and armies on the little map. It's the actual resource that they're fighting with and for. Credibility is their power to do things in the arena. Its is the weapon, its the currency that is gained or lost through skillful play.

To clarify here's the situation:

In the hypothetical game's "Guide to Monstrous Fauna" there's a creature called the Quagduck that's a giant man-eating duck. In the description is says, "An easy way to fend off this horrendous beast (which doe to it's tremendous size is likely unkillable by other means) is by quacking like a duck which will make it think that you are one of it's kind; it's not too bright. At that point it's a small matter to kill the now passive creature from behind."

The point is that there are potentially infinite numbers of facts that the player may have to try to accumulate to be good at such a game. Strategy here? Well, going into the Quaggy Marsh Swamp maybe I should do some reading up on the Marsh first in the local library to see what I can find out about dangerous fauna.

No munchkinism, just a player trying to bend the Gamist odds in his favor.

And this is just one axis along which strategic depth can be developed in an RPG. I propose that there are litterally an infinite number of potential axes. That is, an RPG can be litterally as complicated as you'd like to have it be.

Am I getting any clearer?

Mike

Hey Mike,

You know, this whole deal about the definition of strategic depth has been a colossal tangent. I think I accidentally led you off the scent here when I said that Go has more strategic depth than Chess - which is true, but you seem to have taken that as a claim that Go has more strategic depth than anything else.

You remember this? This was the main point, that the rest of my post was leading up to:

Quote from: ISo, let's say that such layering is a given for a strategic game. How much depth do we really need? Tic Tac Toe obviously doesn't have enough - it's a trivial matter to run through the entire tree. Do we need as much as Go? I'm sure that the actual answer lies in a range of personally acceptable values. Too few and strategy is trivialized, because anyone can read out to the end. To many, and strategy is trivialized because no one can read ahead at all, and options are just chosen at random.

Once I established that strategic depth is something that can be mathematically and factually determined (you said you agree with this, right?), the question was not "what game has the most strategic depth," but "how much strategic depth do we need?"

Theirry, I think, was proposing that the ultimate gamer's game is one that has the most strategic depth with the fewest rules. You're saying that fewer rules does not necessarily mean more strategic depth. I agree. I'm saying something different: that unlimited strategic depth is not necessarily a good thing. There's a comfort zone to be found between "not enough" and "too much."

Quote from: deadpanbobDesigns that facilitate good strategic play... play are games without break-points, layering and currency transfer issues - particularly at character generation.  Any of these things in the system will be immedaite attractors to players like myself - and we will work out how to take advantage of them - because a lot of the strategic play in RPG's happens during character creation.  

It makes sense that so much of it happens there, since the character is the primary tool the player has in the game world, it's what would be used to gain leverage.    

Complex game systems (of the dysfunctional variety described above and elsewhere) and ones that try to take into account the millions of different situations that may come up that could be exploited in a "creative" or rules-bending fashion, may in some way be the way they are because of the way authority, or power, or what have you, is apportioned.  Interpreting rules and finding loop-holes or manipulating currency transfers may be ways of trying to eke more power out of the situation.  Seems inevitable given the oppositional character of gm/player relations and coming from the idea that only one person should have almost all the say about what goes.

--EC

Quote from: Emily Care
Complex game systems (of the dysfunctional variety described above and elsewhere) and ones that try to take into account the millions of different situations that may come up that could be exploited in a "creative" or rules-bending fashion, may in some way be the way they are because of the way authority, or power, or what have you, is apportioned.  Interpreting rules and finding loop-holes or manipulating currency transfers may be ways of trying to eke more power out of the situation.  Seems inevitable given the oppositional character of gm/player relations and coming from the idea that only one person should have almost all the say about what goes.

I agree whole-heartedly with this.  It's precisely this reason that I ended up as the GM for all of the RPGs I played in my early years.  I simply couldn't stand to let someone else be in charge of the narrative authority.

However, even after I got over this issue, and found games that did a better job of apportioning the narrative authority - I still had this evil little gamist/munchkin inside who needs to be satisfied, especially when I play.

I think that putting an atagonistic sping on the GM/Player relationship explicitly in the text (like Mr. Nixon did with Donjon) makes for a heck of a way to encourage the gamist nature of the game.

Cheers,


Jason

Quote from: deadpanbobI think that putting an antagonistic sping on the GM/Player relationship explicitly in the text (like Mr. Nixon did with Donjon) makes for a heck of a way to encourage the gamist nature of the game.

It's amazing the difference that consciousness makes.  Antagonism and competition are fun and are healthy to indulge in.  I think the whole "how things are isn't the only way" has been well covered (one of Mr. R. Edward's fabulous 5 threads comes to mind...) but it bears repeating when thinking about how not to design a gamist game.


--EC

Quote from: PaganiniTheirry, I think, was proposing that the ultimate gamer's game is one that has the most strategic depth with the fewest rules.

To be precise, I paraphrased him this way, and was told that this was not true.

Mike

QuoteAntagonism and competition are fun and are healthy to indulge in.

Yes, playing the best you can knowing everyone does the same is a reward in itself for my type of gamism.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: PaganiniThierry, I think, was proposing that the ultimate gamer's game is one that has the most strategic depth with the fewest rules.

To be precise, I paraphrased him this way, and was told that this was not true.
Mike

It's a definition as good as any other I could propose.

In practice, I found that complex rules are not needed for the type of strategy I enjoy, so the games tend to be on the abstract/dry side, with little reliance on luck. Alternatively, you could say that any game where skill matters and where one's play improves with experience is somehow a gamer's game.

Coming back to the start of the thread, what surprises me is how little rpgs considered as Gamists borrow from other games. Mechanisms tend to be of the wargamish type but wargames themselves are not purely gamists (hence the politically correct euphemism for them: Conflict Simulation).