First, read Mike's rant.
Now, please give good examples on how RPGs have implemented strategy & tactics in play. Please note that I only wish to examine RPG rules, not roleplaying situations provided by the GM.
Thank you!
So is it as I feared that there are no rpg rules that implement strategy and tactics in play?
A few games:
D&D 3.0 (can't speak for 3.5) is FAR more strategic than tactical but, for reference, it does include both strategy and tactics. The most important strategy is selection of feats and class levels for the optimal combination of abilities, particularly in regard to prestige classes. The tactics enter in the actual, step-by-step combat declaration. For certain strategies -- say, the rogue -- tactics are very important, but for others -- the spiked chain fighter -- they are vanishingly small.
Riddle of Steel has an amazingly strong tactical engine. The strategics come from getting the most out of your combat pool, which is complicated (there are a number of ways to do it, and armor penetration + rapier limitations add interesting question marks) but the nitty gritty of the game is in the dice declaration and manuevers of combat.
Vampire LARPs, in the standard political form, are highly strategic, largely on a social level and making sure that your coteries are functional and that you haven't become killable. There are, however, essentially no tactics, except perhaps in the day to day conversations.
Tactics, the game I am working on, endeavours to be tactical with a small amount of strategy -- the point being that I am not interested in the D&D 3.0 effect where one wrong feat choice can throw off your character's entire developement path and render you, essentially, worthless.
That's a brief review. There are many more games.
yrs--
--Ben
I'd also toss in a mention of The Burning Wheel as Tactical with a Strategic option. The Tactical considerations are similar to those found in TRoS (the combat options are quite similar,) but with more guess work since you must script your action without knowledge of your opponent's actions. Strategy is covered by the stats of equipment (both armor and weapons) as well as by the optional use of Martial Arts Techniques.
An interesting idea i ran into the other day over at the Ad Astra Games (//www.adastragames.com) forum was the idea of scaling an RPG into a tactical board game. Essentially the stats of characters plug directly into the boardgame itself (as much as possible) such that the board game actually can be viewed as a set of optional, highly-tactical combat rules. I'm not sure whether or not this is what you're talking about since it's really more of a product integration, but i thought that i should mention it...
Thomas
After some thought and a reread of Mike's rant i've come up with the following hypothesis:
Tactical games require (maybe "benefit from" is better) equality of information. In Chess or Go or any other competative board game i can think of each player has knowledge of what's on the board. Each player also has knowledge of what can be introduced to the board. It is the combination of these two sets of knowledge that allow tactics.
I can successfully play my strategy in Settlers of Catan by analyzing die probabilities, observing opponents' actions, and predicting what new factors may be brought into play. If something surprises me it's not because i didn't know that it could happen, it's simply because i didn't think that it would.
The problem with most RPGs is that with the GM having the ability to introduce new obstacles whenever the need (or simply the perverse desire) arises makes it impossible for me to accurately predict what might happen. In a game of Chess i know that you have a rook, a knight, two bishops, and three pawns. I don't believe that you will sacrifice that knight for one of my five pawns, but you might. In an RPG, if you were the GM, it's possible that you might just plop a queen down on the board. There is no way for me to plan for this, so whenever this kind of thing happens i will feel rather put out.
Even with a GM who is trying to be "realistic" to the situation things aren't smooth. The problem is that you and i will have different interpretations of what is and is not "realistic."
Now, my problem with you just throwing a new queen on the board would probably be mitigated if we were playing Bugout (Siamese Chess) and i saw that you had a Queen on your side board. In this case the rules specifically allow you to place a queen on the board.
The solution, it seems to me, is some sort of limiter on what the GM can and can not do. If you have 10 "do-stuff points" and it takes two of them to create a challenging enemy then i know that i won't face more than five challenging enemies. It seems that this may come into conflict (as i believe has been said before) with Simulationism because it may make sense for me to face 10 challenging enemies instead.
I'm going to toy with the numbers a bit i believe, maybe i can come up with something interesting.
Thomas
Quote from: quozlPlease note that I only wish to examine RPG rules, not roleplaying situations provided by the GM.
Impossible, I would say.
Think of historical miniatures, for instance. Players invest in numerous and expensive miniatures to make their armies fight each other. Rules are cheap, so many rules exist (I can name at least 4 off the top of my head) and ultimately it is the situation that makes the games tactical, not the exact resolution mechanism.
Or take a look at ...hmmm... Diplomacy ;) - plenty of strategy, some limited tactics, yet it's all in the board, not in the rules.
As I mentioned in Mike's rant thread, Orx implements tactical, Gamist-lovin' options by providing a clear view of the field for both player and gamemaster.
Each "side" has outright stated goals -- the gamemaster's is to kill the orcs by reducing their stats; the players' is for the orcs to survive -- limited, visible resources -- for orcs, this is their Stats and Descriptors; for the gamemaster, it is his Scene and Fate dice -- and clear options.
The players can work to keep the gamemaster from gaining more dice (and thus beating them more quickly/easily), but have to balance their actions in this regard: confounding the gamemaster in the long run results in a decreased chance of success in the short term.
The gamemaster's ability to heinously slaughter the orcs at any given time is restricted by their need to work up to that point through saving dice and clever tactical plays on their part playing dice against dice.
Quote from: greyormAs I mentioned in Mike's rant thread, Orx implements tactical, Gamist-lovin' options by providing a clear view of the field for both player and gamemaster.
This does sound the best submitted here so far. So can I get a good look at Orx or do I need to wait?
I will be releasing a preview chapter sometime after the holidays, but Orx itself is coming out this spring (exact date TBA), so you'll have to wait to competely satisfy your curiousity more fully 'til then!
There are some older free versions floating around on the web, if you can find them, but they lack most of the alterations to the system made in the last year (from playtests and system balancing).
Why did this get moved to the GNS forum? I just want examples of good gamist design! Mike mentioned that were a few good designs in his rant but so far has declined to mention them. I really don't consider the choosing of classes and feats good strategic design and am unsure what about Burning Wheel and Riddle of Stell give good tactics design since I have neither of those games.
First, I did mention TROS. In some ways I think it's the best example of an elegant system that provides a lot of tactical challenge. And I think that challenge is all in the selection of maneuvers and dice. This leaves a lot of permutations.
I've played Burning Wheel, and while not as elegant, it has a bewildering array of potential tactics in terms of scripting. My favorite part was just trying to decide what my character was going to say in combat. The scripting reminds me of the game Gladiator (used to come with Circus Maximus), which was also a very tactical game. I haven't even really gotten into the magic of BW yet, so I can't even comment on how much that likely adds to the situation.
The class/feat thing is quite strategic. Players are constantly looking to maximize the character's overall effectiveness, and also to broaden effectiveness at the same time. Do I take a class that another character has, in order to be a backup to that effectiveness? Or do I maximize my primary effectiveness? Is there a class available that does a little of both? Can I gain extra effectiveness by crossing my capabilities? How do the Feats "stack" in terms of effectiveness? Etc, etc. May not be perfect, but I don't think many other games have as extensive a set of choices on the strategic planning end.
Again, I can't mention how much adding whole additional dimensions can add to choice. Many players seem not to like the "Miniatures rules" for D&D, but any time you add actual movement to combat, you multiply the tactical choices. Again D&D3E may not do this perfectly, but it does do it. Hero System does some quirky things here, and even GURPS does some interesting things (+3 to dodge if you give ground; hmmm, sounds something like an Evade from TROS). In fact, TFT was a highly tactical game for all it's primitiveness, mainly because of movement.
Interestingly, however, movement is often the first thing to go. I think that's because people feel that having Pawns on the board just detracts too much from immersion. But I digress. In discussing the ideas of "social combat" something that I'd really like to see would be rules that parallel combat movement rules. That is, so far, really, all mechanical Gamism really comes down to combat. I'd like to see us not only develop better Gamist rules, but for areas other than combat, too.
Games like Aftermath! have loads of strategy in terms of civilization building, for instance. Your combat effectiveness will be greatly increased if you can find a shell loading kit and can make your own ammo for your guns, but you'll only be able to do that if you have someone who knows how, etc. Is that sort of strategic play interesting on the macro level? Well, that's another issue. But it does provide a model, and I'm wondering how Bruce Baugh's new Gamma World rules about communities do in this regard?
Rune is quite interesting from a strategic POV, especially in terms of the player design of the adventures for their compatriots. A real twist. Probably not what most people think of in terms of gamist challenge in an RPG, but a good one.
People point to T&T's saving rolls. While I like the idea behind them, I think that the only challenge involved is getting the GM to allow you to use a high score to make the roll. More social than tactical (though that can be Gamist sorta, too).
Many, many games out there have one or two interesting twists that make them interesting in small areas. For example, the couple of phased initiative systems that are being discussed out there remind me of some games that have challenge through this sort of detail. The problem with these is that, once you've gone through that part of the challenge, the strategies soon become pretty well established in terms of what supports the less interesting areas of resolution. Which means that they go from being interesting to boring quite quickly. So, even when there is this one interesting thing, it doesn't make for a system that's interesting overall.
In Angbad (the text CRPG), for instance, there are myriad weapon types with differing weights and therefore speeds in use and damages. The best weapon is the rapier, because you can get 3 attacks with it in a turn if you're really strong. While there are weapons that can do 3 times as much damage, the real benefit is being able to use your strength and other damage bonuses three times as often. So, what looks to be an interesting tactical decision turns out to be made moot by another mechanic that's much more prosaic, yet related. How could this be changed into a better strategic decision? Lots of possibilities, like having them work differently against different armor classes. If the rapier wasn't so good against heavy armor then it would become a strategic decision again.
Rolemaster is an example of how what seems to be a tactical consideration is destroyed by the fact that there's a dominant strategy (q.v. Game Theory). In RM, you are allowed to transfer whatever points you like from your Offensive Bonus to your Defensive Bonus. This means that you have quite a large theoretical lattitude in choice for attack and defense (with an OB of 99 you have 100 choices). The problem is that, in play it turns out that the best defense is a good offense. That is, the book says that "only fools and berzerkers make all out attacks". But the advantages are indisputable. If you go first, then you always attack all out because, at worst, the opponent will defend all out and cancel you out, leaving himself with little or no attack back. At best, he'll defend with, say, half, and you'll mow him down. Even if you only score a Stunned, he doesn't get to attack back. If you score two rounds of stun, you can attack all out without repercussion next round. It's just the winning strategy if you have initiative. So what at first looks like an interesting tactical consideration turns out to have a simple dominant strategy.
OK, so now I've gone off again on systems that have done a bad job. But really my point is that there are few systems that have done anything like a good job, historically. Mainly because, after 1980, Gamism was considered something to be expunged from most games in favor of Sim. So, when Gamism is in there, it's almost always messed up by some combination with Sim ("trying to get players to react realistically").
The good news is that this leaves the field wide open, IMO. And, as was said in the other thread, if you want ideas, don't look at RPGs, look at other games that are really challenging, and figure out how to get those ideas over to RPGs.
Mike
Oh, one more thing.
Having an open playing field, as I've said, isn't a panacea. Yes, the players need to have some information upon which to make decisions. But for a really challenging game, they should have lots of information, but much of it should be incorrect, or partial. That is, interpolating date from hidden sources is often one of the most challenging parts of Gamist design.
So, sure, give information where it helps create a challenge. But better yet, find a way to give only part of the picture.
Mike
First, thank you Mike for replying!
Quote from: Mike HolmesFirst, I did mention TROS. In some ways I think it's the best example of an elegant system that provides a lot of tactical challenge. And I think that challenge is all in the selection of maneuvers and dice. This leaves a lot of permutations.
This sounds to me like Rock-Paper-Scissors. Is it actually tactical or would random selection produce just as good results?
As for strategy being the maximizing of effectiveness, isn't it a little lame when the GM can just see what you're not effective at and just throw that at you? I think I agree with greyorm when he says the GM must be limited in order for there to be real strategic options.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that tactics needs movement and position rules. Miniatures are definitely the way to go there.
Your last post is interesting. Would a gamist game be more strategic and tactical if the GM also had only partial information about the characters?
I've found Gurps to have excellent tactical options when using the advanced combat rules, a battlemat and miniatures. Plus with gurps you can create a wide range of capable characters that are still likely to have some kind of weakness, a fair amount of strategy. It's not really gamist but I think you could have a fair amount of fun just creating characters and running the combats.
Quote from: Mike HolmesFirst, I did mention TROS. In some ways I think it's the best example of an elegant system that provides a lot of tactical challenge. And I think that challenge is all in the selection of maneuvers and dice. This leaves a lot of permutations.
Quote from: quozl
This sounds to me like Rock-Paper-Scissors. Is it actually tactical or would random selection produce just as good results?
BL> Not a vast amount of time to comment, but: Not at all. Riddle of Steel has no hidden information (Or, it can, but usually doesn't.) The attacker delcares attack, and the defender declares defense. The tactics is in resource marshalling, not guesswork.
I would also think that tactics does not require positioning, but that positioning often engenders tactics. Tactics can also emerge for resource marshalling and meaningful guesswork (above and beyond RPS). Does that make any sense? RoS has lots of tactics with no simulation of realspace "positioning," although it wouldn't be hard to graft on.
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: quozl
Your last post is interesting. Would a gamist game be more strategic and tactical if the GM also had only partial information about the characters?
Just a brief observation. I don't think that full or partial information necessarily makes for a better Gamist game. Chess has no hidden information, while Tigris & Euphrates has a much higher amount of hidden information. Both are excellent strategic games.
However, I do know that the question of information control does need to be considered and addressed when designing a Gamist RPG. There's probably a lot of room for further work in this area, since most RPGs do not use or encourage hidden information.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
Quote from: GreatWolfHowever, I do know that the question of information control does need to be considered and addressed when designing a Gamist RPG. There's probably a lot of room for further work in this area, since most RPGs do not use or encourage hidden information.
As a possibly off-topic aside: Is this really your experience?
In my experience, I've been in a lot of Sim-heavy games where you're not supposed to know much OOC than you know IC about what's going on.
There's a lot of information-hiding in RPGs. It's just that it's very Sim-oriented, not Gamist-oriented. For example, in those same games I usually know the most optimal way to engage in combat.
Quote from: xiombargIn my experience, I've been in a lot of Sim-heavy games where you're not supposed to know much OOC than you know IC about what's going on.
But what about the other side? Is the GM not supposed to know what the characters know?
Quote from: quozlBut what about the other side? Is the GM not supposed to know what the characters know?
I've seen this a lot, too. Ususually it's where the GM doesn't have any idea what the players are planning until they do it.
Oy, my head hurts.
Hidden information isn't the only way to make a good game, either, no. But it's one good potential option. To be really more precise, what's neccessary for a good game is that the player has to use some skill to discern between multiple strategies in order to win. That choice has to neither be too simple - if there's an easily discerned dominant strategy it's not much of a game - and not too hard. Because if its too hard, then players choose randomly instead of trying to figure out something they can't.
How to allow for those strategies to be present in sufficient quantity and quality is a matter of determining the cross product of the maneuvers available in a "move" and how difficult it is to evaluate each maneuver relative to each other. This difficulty can be created through lots of information, or through information which is known to exist, but the nature of which is unknown. Or even the potential that something comepletely unknown exists.
You can't make any statements about what's optimal here, because it's all on a case by case basis. As I said, you can actually overdo it.
TROS does have hidden information as a potentially important part of strategy. You don't know how many dice your opponent has, neccessarily, and he doesn't have to use them all. Perfect example.
It may turn out that TROS is a RPS sort of game in the end. But to it's credit, none of the many players who play it have discovered what the "cycle" is yet. As such, it's still not a "known" game, and nobody knows a best strategy. Yet people can still point out tactics. This means that TROS is at the optimal level for a game in terms of strategy in general terms. There are gradations of optimal, however. But compared to, say, D&D, which is almost completely a "known" game, it's way ahead of the curve.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesOy, my head hurts.
Mike
Mine too. It's hard to pin down what strategy and tactics are and not just say "I know it when I see it." For example, is Dominoes more or less strategic if played with all player's tiles face-up? I don't know and my head hurts thinking about it too long.
But let's get specific now, specificially RPG physical combat systems.
In your opinion, does TROS offer the best strategic and tactical physical comabt system for an RPG? What parts could improve? Are those parts done better by another RPG?
Quote from: quozlSo is it as I feared that there are no rpg rules that implement strategy and tactics in play?
Most RPG rules are heavy on boring strategy: chosing powers and classes that will ensure long term success. I dropped out of the hobby because no one executed fun or interesting tactics during play. We sat around rolling dice in a desultory fashion and making Monty Python references. Those games that facilitate in-play tactics and concentrated fun are Sorcerer and Hero Quest.
I will give a shout out to Deadlands. The system is inelegant and clunky, but I loved the interplay of strategy-influencing chance (The odds are high I will get 3 chances to act) and tactical response to the outcomes of chance (Only got 1 card -- can't fire off this clunky old revolver this round). All the special options for duels made for some nail-bitingly tense play.
Quote from: quozlIt's hard to pin down what strategy and tactics are and not just say "I know it when I see it." For example, is Dominoes more or less strategic if played with all player's tiles face-up? I don't know and my head hurts thinking about it too long.
But, see, there's this whole field of mathematics that does exactly this called, you guessed it, Game Theory. This is why your head hurts, you're trying to intuitively determine the principles that people like Von Neumann (also invented the modern computer) and John Nash (of Beautiful Mind fame) came up with in the middle of the last century. If you're really, really interested in this, do your reading there. I can only claim to have a cursory knowledge of how it works, but I know enough to say that there's a body of work there that at the very least makes all this much easier to discuss. Oh, if only I could use a phrase like "minmaxed mixed strategy equilibrium" and have people get what I was saying. :-)
QuoteIn your opinion, does TROS offer the best strategic and tactical physical comabt system for an RPG? What parts could improve? Are those parts done better by another RPG?
Best? You're kidding, right? Without criteria? Let's say you've got some players who really want a slight challenge, but mostly easy recreation - what some people would call the Beer & Pretzels level of challenge. Then you have another group who, tired of playing Go, want to find an equal or more challenging game. What's best for one is not best for the other group.
TROS provides a level of challenge that'll probably get your character killed with a Beer & Pretzels attitude eventually. So it's somewhere in between. A nice happy medium. Does that mean that I think that more challenging games shouldn't be created? Nope. But I leave the specific level of challenge to the designer.
I'm going to get into some Game Theory here. I have to assume that people don't understand the terms, so if you do, please understand that I'm not trying to talk down to anyone. I'm using the simplest and most obvious examples just to be clear, not to insult anyone's intelligence.
What is important is that, if the Game is really to have some sort of Gamist challenge, that no "dominant" strategy be readily apparent from the get-go. That is, at the very least, players should have to consider their current positions at all times to do well. A dominant strategy, as you might guess, is one that gives a better result than any other (strategy, again, being a plan of moves). If you've played tic-tac-toe as an adult, then you're probably aware that there's a dominant strategy about where to place your first X, and where to counter with the first O. With both players playing these strategies, nobody can win (if you believe otherwise, then you haven't played enough with players really trying to win).
(For those who've seen the movie Wargames, this is the point of the movie. It's essentially a parable about the work actually done by people like John Nash in game theory at the Rand thinktank in regards to nuclear war.)
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, if possible without exceeding your Beer/Go level of intensity, that the game should have no easily discerned dominant strategy at any particular moment. That is, there may be one, potentially, but the player should at least have to think a little to come up with it. And given faulty analysis, they should fail.
A possibly better goal, is not to have dominant strategies available at all, and instead have a game where Nash Equilibria of some sort exist. That means that the player may not be able to optimize things perfectly to his advantage, but he can make the best with what he has in some fashion that allows that the opponent may also be reaching some level of benefit (that's a poor explanation, but it's a difficult concept - Nash one the Nobel for it, remember).
Thus, for instance, if the game only considers weapon damage, then, all else being equal, you select the weapon that does the most damage. This is such an obvious case of a dominant strategy that games go to all manner of lengths to mitigate this sort of thing. The problem is that they only muddle the analysis a little in most cases, and in the end there's just a harder to discern dominant strategy. And further, they usually aren't affected by tactical considerations later on. Thus, a player can determine the best weapon at the outset. For example, often weapon weight comes into play in theory as a potential problem for encumberance. But usually the player quickly discerns that the more potent weapon's extra weight easily is worth the few coins that it means he will not be able to carry out of the dungeon. Weapon cost is similar (lots of games will have exponentially more expensive "fine" weapons, as slightly more of a challenge).
The typical example of a solvable, but potentially difficult weapon stat to minmax (minmax is a technical term, which means to determine the dominant stratgy through number crunching, sorta), is weapon speed. The player has to consider what the deleterious effects of a slower weapon are in terms of the comparison to the damage produced (usually these are made inversely proportional in some way). These often result in some calculation of damage-per-unit-time or somesuch that often involve character statistics (and as such may involve character minmaxing as part of the overall strategy: e.g. the Shortbow archer phenomenon in TFT).
This sort of analysis is still all up front, however (in some really complicated cases, the player has to account for the potential loss of damage producing capability over time due to wounding effects, but even that's a predictive chore). What would make weapons of more interest is if there were different options in their use that made difference given the tactical situation. For instance, half-swording in TROS. The same sort of minmax analysis occurs on the spot in TROS when a character decides in which manner to use the sword against an armored foe. Is the gain in penatration ability worth the other penalties that come with the option? Not a hard decision by itself, but combined with the other tactical considerations in TROS, the weapon with this option does provide for more tactical options, and hence contributes to why, at least till now, TROS has not become a "known" game.
A known game is one in which a solution as to the dominant strategy, or equilibria have been determined (and are presumably known to the players).
In fact, in TROS, there are likely no dominant strategies. Even given statistical analysis of the outcomes, the player still has to guess to an extent what the opponent will do, hence making the first choice difficult. This is wonderful, BTW, because it makes the Master Sensei Samurai phenomenon true - often the first to attack will lose. AFAICT, the closest thing to a dominant strategy in TROS starts with goading your opponent into attacking first. But even that's dubious from practical results I've seen.
So, now is my appreciation for TROS more clear? I think that there's a lot more excitement in Gamist RPGs if the player decisions (Step On Up, as Ron would put it) are tactically fateful, meaning that they have to be determined on the spot, and not merely be the result of some overall winning strategy. Otherwise combat becomes just going through the motions to do the best that you're aware is possible. That's not to say that strategic elements should be ignored - that's a valid choice, but it's refusing to use an entire second set of potential decision-making possibilities. Just that, often, the tactical elements are irrelevant in light of the strategic in many games.
Are we getting anywhere?
Note that dice rolls are a godsend for these purposes. Because any such decision to be made becomes an order of magnitude more difficult to analyze with randomizers. Because instead of looking at one particular value for a decision, randomizers mean that you have to look at potentially many statistical outcomes. What matters more, the mean of the weapon's damage, or the range (min and max), or some other statistic like the standard deviation for many dice rolled together?
Also, there's that whole "odds transparency" issue. All odds are calculable, but some methods require such problematic math that (unless we're those bored Go players), people are just not likely to do the math. Instead, they'll estimate, which itself becomes a good Gamist skill. OTOH, if estimation becomes impossible, then the dice fall out of the equation in terms of what players will do to determine best tactics. For those who like to be able to use the odds as part of the determination of strategy, they should be more estimable, or even calculable.
This, then is where aesthetic issues come into play. If a designer feels that they want to emulate the character experience more, he may decide that having easily calculable odds is bad for that feel. So he may reasonably disclude them. The point is that, again, what's "best" for a game isn't easily decided. If the game becomes so divorced from feel that the player doesn't think in terms of character and situation any longer, but rather in terms of numbers only, then is it a RPG any longer?
So, this is just the surface of this issue. I could go on at length. What I hope to show is why there's no simple way to discuss this subject. What should be done is to disect things into parts and to look at them in digestible chunks. Beyond that, the only thing that I can say is that one should understand the principles of Game Theory so that you can attack the specific problems that occur. Interestingly, Game Theory really can't address something as complicated as an RPG overall in one swoop. The best it can do is to break it down into smaller parts to look at each one so that they can be assembled back together again (where another overall round can occur). So even the theory can't give you a direct answer, if you see what I mean.
Mike
Following on the above...
Quote from: epweissengruberThose games that facilitate in-play tactics and concentrated fun are Sorcerer and Hero Quest.
I disagree strongly. Rather, I think we must be talking about different things. Because the only strategy in either of these games is to convince the GM to give you more bonus dice or augments. That's a simple dominant strategy.
Don't get me wrong, these are amongst my favorite games. They just have very little in the way of tactical decision making in terms of Gamism. What they do have is decision making in terms of Narrativism. For example, I have Love's Alana 7w, but Hate's Alana's Father 10w. Same augment from each, but I have to ask myself, is it worth sacrificing my love for Alana to kill her father? Great Narrativism support, almost no Gamist support. The book even enumerates the dominant bidding strategies so that you don't have to come up with them on your own.
Mike
I don't remember if I've posted this link before, but I think that Shannon Appelcline's Thinking Virtually (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/virtually.html) column is quite helpful in dealing with these issues. Start with column #56 (Strategic Introductions). He is discussing boardgame design (with a specific eye towards web-based "board" games), but the principles extend straight into good Gamist design.
And if I'm repeating myself, I apologize.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
Quote from: Mike HolmesBut, see, there's this whole field of mathematics that does exactly this called, you guessed it, Game Theory. This is why your head hurts, you're trying to intuitively determine the principles that people like Von Neumann (also invented the modern computer) and John Nash (of Beautiful Mind fame) came up with in the middle of the last century. If you're really, really interested in this, do your reading there.
Mike
Thank you, Mike, that really helped. I've been reading a little about game theory in the books I have about designing computer games but have a lot left to read. Are there any books that you recommend for an introduction to game theory?
Also, if you're willing, I would love it if you analyzed part of an RPG with game theory in threads here on The Forge just like you did with weapon damage (and weight and cost, etc.)
Thanks again!
What game? And just as an exercise? I'd prefer to apply it to an actual design. I was tempted to get in on the "tactics" game discussion as that seemed appropriate.
Gads how I wish we had an expert in this here. I worry that I'm making myself look foolish by trying to teach something that I only dabble in myself. Which is my way of saying that I've learned everything I know of Game Theory from articles and the like. You can probably do as well with a search on the internet as with anything that I can suggest.
http://www.gametheory.net/
This site works as a decent primer, IME.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesWhat game? And just as an exercise? I'd prefer to apply it to an actual design.
Mike
Please do. I don't have a game in mind but any that analysis of any existing game should be a good start. Now I need to start reading....
BTW, as a quick aside to this thread: As I mentioned elsewhere, old-school (little booklets) Traveller had a lot of rules for determining prices and general economics, making an excellent non-Combat Gamist minigame sort of thing.
Sorta. I'd say that, yes it's a non-combat mini-game. But I wouldn't say excellent. That is, it's a simple matter of looking at the map, and the world price modifiers to see where the profits are. Then it's just a matter of how much you're willing to gamble on the outcome die roll per commodity.
To whit, we played that game to death, some sessions being nothing but that. The result? Even with a cruddy tramp merchant, you can pay off your debts and become millionairs in very short order. Basically, in the context of the overall game, the "Starship Economics" game is too easy to win as written. Too few variables, too few risks, and little strategy besides "buy low, sell high".
So, I wouldn't say it's great. Not a bad start, however, and I really like the idea.
Mike
I've only had limited experience with it, myself, so I bow to your greater knowledge.
Certainly it might be a Simulationism vs. Gamism issue, in that in the real world it's not that hard to make some money doing shipping, plus it's cool to be able to become millionaires...