Mike's Standard Rant #7: Designing for Gamism Ain't Easy

[Mike Holmes]

Doesn't changing the environment do this though? If you just have three orcs, okay, the group rumbles one, then the next, then the next. Simple. But what if they are three orc snipers that you haven't spotted yet. Just being able to spot them will require menouvering, perhaps.

Sure. But that's a feature of the GMs innovation, not of the system. As I've said, you can always mix things up. But the question is what's the result? That is, the same GM with a better Gamist system does the same neat things and gets an even better result.  

Further, this doesn't really make the tactics harder for most bad RPGs. Think about yourself coming on this situation. Are the best tactics really difficult to come up with at all?

And if it is just a matter of running up to three orcs with swords...well, how does chess handle this. After all, in that game its just a matter of walking up and bang, you take the piece. Well chess basically handles it with 'covering fire'. Each piece is covered by another piece. In the orcs example, if only Jimmy the PC can resist fire, then he's the only one to fight the magically flaming orc.

Chess handles this by giving you more pieces, and more moves. The basic problem with an RPG is that each player has only one piece, and they usually have very few viable moves. Again, the magically flaming orc may actually limit the viable moves in an RPG. It probably doesn't add any moves (uh, cast some spell to put him out?). Note how you've actually made the tactical situation simpler by making it so that only Jimmy can reasonably fight the orc.

Of course, once you've figured this out, the tactical part runs dry. How would chess answer that? Well, the opposing side would move in in anticipation. Eg, the flaming orc falling back to an ambush point.

Sure, as I've already said, movement adds an order of magnitude to complexity.

Of course, this might be considered the strategic level.

No, it's tactical.

Finally, an example. A TROS equivalent of the 'run up to the orcs, use the same old plan' would be bad guys who always use the same dice spread and no special moves or anything. That would pretty much kill tactics in TROS as well.

Sure. But that's not what I'm comparing. I'm assuming a GM who plays within the rules given competently for both games. In TROS, the thinking will be tough against those orcs. In D&D, you just shoot the flaming orc and snipers. Or run for cover. Pretty damn obvious. You look at the character sheet, see what resources are available, and select the one that's best tactically. Then you decide if it's strategically sound to use the resource. It's just so simple.

Now, again, you could make that some sort of arrow rebounding orc or something. But again, that's probably hidden information that's not possible to estimate. To the extent that it is, sure you can have the orc shaman mix it up with the characters with his magic. Even then, however, the choices for player response aren't that many. Time to gang up on the shaman, or shoot him, or run, etc.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Bob, all I have to say is, yep, sounds right to me. :-)

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Last in a series of several reply posts in a row above.

Gamist systems are harder to make than we think.  Noncombat gamist ones doubly so.

Disagree. The boardgame people have been doing this for years. Monopoly? Careers? Games about money, not combat. I think that Bob is right to cite the wargame influence. We think combat is easier because that's all that we've tended to see. It's only hard to implement the other things because we've seen them less.

In terms of the Diablo analogy: This is indeed a relevant note, because that sort of gamism is indeed wildly popular.  Sure, you could play methodically, and I know some who do (frequently including me), but the fun level actually increases as you buy into the design choice that nonmethodical play, though sub-optimal, is actually more fun.  I think there are two elements overlapping, there; Gamists love a challenge, and by increasing the challenge due to a strictly OOC decision, you're increasing that challenge without having to sacrifice your sense of triumph. [/quote] I completely agree. Note however how Diablo can do this better than a PnP RPG because more strategic ground gets covered in a shorter time, and how the retreat option seems more sensible in terms of the limitations of a computer game.

Also, pure challenge is not the only aesthetic of the play, and the (part sim-char, part pure esthetics of elegance etc) "don't go back to town just yet" mode of play satisfies both considerably better than "kill one monster, rest, heal, return."

Quite true. The fact that these things conflict, however, creates at times a very odd feel in games. Basically we're talking about Gam/Nar incoherence. "Well, it's tactically sound to retreat right now, but my character is about issues of courage that can't be addressed if I retreat. What do I do?"

And I think that Gamist games, to return us to Mike's topic, could benefit from this example - some of them, anyway.  Because you don't always have to design to resist the "twinks" who will methodicalize their way through the module without regard for other aesthetic choices.  Those who are really getting their Gamist kicks will subscribe to voluntary challenges (how long can you stay on Level Fifteen before using Town Portal?), and those whose enjoyment is based on a less purely Gamist agenda will have other aesthetics to satisfy simultaneously (my character wouldn't back off yet!, or the simple elegance/story aesthetic that says that one epic journey is superior to fifteen short recon trips).

What I'd prefer to see is something that would make staying in the dungeon a tactically sound option. Such that the choice to do so would be sensible and cool simultaneously. For example, if there was some sort of "momentum" stat that you gained after each win that helped your effectiveness, one that you'd have to give up if you went back to town...Well, not a great example, but you get my drift. Rules that encourage heroism, not militate against it.

Really, many Gamist designs build too much for the "Pseudo-Gamist" type... those who are ego-stroking, not playing against the challenge for the enjoyment of it.  

Not sure what you're getting at here.

For example, not all weapons need to be statistically balanced, Sim considerations quite aside; having one (often the rapier, for example, or the whip) with lesser stats and superior "cool-factor" is a Gamist choice, not a Sim one.  Sure, you could burn through that dungeon with a spiked chain.  But can you do it with nothing but a set of brass knuckles?

Sure, but that means that you've made weapons a non-tactical decision. Which I'm fine with - it just doesn't mean that the game is any better as a tactical excercise from that POV.

And as always, System Does Matter.  Even with regard to aesthetics - maybe even especially then.  If you want to replicate the Creative Agenda of good Diablo play, and encourage players to do better in X time than others might, then build toward that.  

Holy Cow, no. I mean if somebody else wants to do so, fine.

But what I've been saying all along is that this one way to get more strategy in play is actually a really poor aesthetic choice in most cases. So what I'm saying is that it's another case of how these games are bad. The only strategy that they do encourage has to do with something that's completely out of genre.

I'm not saying that people can't enjoy it as an aesthetic itself. But I don't particularly. Sop make the Diablo tabletop game if you like. I'll be here wondering why you don't just play the computer game.

Your Goodnight spell I like. It's like my momentum thing, but better.

Mike

[xiombarg]

Last in a series of several reply posts in a row above.

Gamist systems are harder to make than we think.  Noncombat gamist ones doubly so.

Disagree. The boardgame people have been doing this for years. Monopoly? Careers? Games about money, not combat. I think that Bob is right to cite the wargame influence. We think combat is easier because that's all that we've tended to see. It's only hard to implement the other things because we've seen them less.

And to back you up here, Mike, consider all the economics rules in old school Traveller.

Good Gamist money-making play there, with a large dose of Sim.

[Drifter Bob]

And to back you up here, Mike, consider all the economics rules in old school Traveller.

Good Gamist money-making play there, with a large dose of Sim.

I still don't know what the hell gamist means, but excellent point, I was thinking of that myself.  Lets take a moment and think of some of the ways that tactical dynamics could be applied to areas of gaming outside of reality:

Persuasion / Rebuttal :  A good start has been made by the Dying Earth RPG, althouhgh somewhat tongue in cheek and oriented toward a specific literary genre.  I think it's interesting and could be further developed.

Thief tasks:  I had already mentioned this one.  I don't know what games if any have done it but it could really exciting and is far, far more nuanced and subtle an art than most mainstream RPG's give credit for, especially since they have made the thief into the homoginzed politically-correct rogue

Property management: games like monopoly

Economic resource management: a million computer games like civilization or sim-city

Strategic resource manangement: a million computer games per above

Stock market and commodity investment: I think the old traveller had a really coool way of doing this

Mercantile ship Trading ala European Renaissance: Anyone done this?  This could be fascinatinga and a great RPG tie-in.  Why is the economy in RPG's so cash based?  There is a document around from the 2nd century BC which is a type of "periplus", that was something they used before they had real maps as such, a series of descriptions of each port and / or harbor along the coast in one direction or another, with descriptions of the navigation hazards if any, the dangers and outlook of the locals, what languaages they speak etc., and what commodities they want versus what they have to trade.  It's a simple short document which could become a great game all by it'self with a bit of tinkering...

Character development via life history (I forgot the specific term for this): Traveller and Burning Wheel have done this, but it could be further developed in all kinds of interesting ways.  I've tiinkered with this a lot in a computer game

Medical healing, disease cure, surgery..: Any game done this?  If you are wondering how detailed and fascinating this could be talk to any nurse, doctor or paramedic

Wilderness survival:  I've been fascinated by this since a short survival course I had in the army.  Think foraging is boring or easy?  Finding firewood alone can be an adventure all by itself.  There are books available on wilderness survival which have many of the parameters and statistics all laid out for you... which leads me to...

Hunting: another hugely nuanced and interesting possibility, oh and how about

Sailing and ocean navigation: I don't think I have to explain how much of a tactical challenge this could be.   Tie this into resource management, trading, strategic management (in terms of personell) and etc. and etc.

[Mike Holmes]

Good points, DB.

GURPS Swashbucklers, and Run out the Guns for example, both make games out of naval matters to an extent. There's always this economic game that's being played above other levels of play that's all about making sure the crew doesn't end up with scurvy.

The problem that I have with these and Traveller, outside of how well they're designed, is that often they're ancillary to the main thrust of the game. Or, rather, you have these two levels going on that don't really seem to relate to each other. On the one level you have this microeconomic game involving everyone, and on the other you have the character stories that are occuring.

For example, in Traveller, often we'd play the economic game as a means to get from planet to planet to get from adventure to adventure. But this is about as good as the linkages get. Rarely are there any other links between the scales of action. So they often seem like disparate games. Such that at times we just threw out one game or the other, to play the one.

What would be really cool would be if somehone could link the levels together in a way that played back and forth more effectively. Just a thought.

Mike

[ADGBoss]

I apologise for jumping in at the late date but reading through the thread something jumped out at me that kind of bothered me a bit.. The idea that game play is Two Tiered: Strategic and Tactical.  In fact the structure which we emulate is actually THREE Tiered.  

Strategic
Operational
Tactical

Now it may appear that I am picking at nits here but hear me out.  Strategy is the End Game, where you want to be when the timer runs out. Now this timer could be a real timer, a set number of turns, or the death of your character.  Operations are those planned interludes that revolve around a set of tactics that will often (if done properly) give us some new strategic advantage.  Tactics are the up to the minute abilities that we employ to succesfully carry out the Operation.

For a non-combat example: lets take football.  End Game you want to be Super Bowl Champ.  Thats the strategic goal and during the draft (team creation) you pick several players who you think that can play well AND who will not cost you too much money AND may even lead you to several Championships.  Then comes the Main Operation: Doing well enough in the Reg Season to make the playoffs.  In there are 16 sub-Operations, the games themselves.  The Coordiantors and the head coach employ their best tactical pawns to win each sub-Operation.  Thus we see the Three Tiers.

How might htis work in an RPG? I see much of the problem in that many campaigns are run like First Person shooters or Console games. Blam blam is the road to victory.  Now the new Deus Ex has changed thata bit, allowing you to win without killing anyone.  

Rolling around in my head has been a fantasy setting called 13 Legends.  Players would do the fantasy thing in pursuit of finding for themselves (each individual) 13 Legends upon which to build their own.  Once they had 13 Legends solved they well won... whatever winning meant.  Probably in this becoming a OLegend someone else can come along and solve later.

So the first strategic decision is to choose the character.  Lets say I choose a sorcerer for whatever reason, they are powerful combat casters.  Also they have many skills available to them.  The first Legend I want to tackle is the Legend of Zoraoth kicking out the Orcs.  Near my home is a dungeon infested with ORcs.  I could go fireball them all, I could learn apothecary and poison them; I could grow mushrooms of Val and offer it to them in exhcnage for them leaving the dungoen.  Really does not matter as long as I succeed.  If I fail (and failure is important) I can move onto a different Legend.  

The Strategic Goal here is through Play, that I become a Legend.  My strategic decisions affect both which Legends I try to achieve (ie which Operations I gon) and which Tactics I use in pursuit of those Operations.

Now all that aside, I think that the tools for good Gamism are there but where failure occurs is that the Judge or GM or whoever is not empowered to offer choices and BE a competitor in the game.  He or she controls the opposition, be it ORcs or another Football team.  There is a prevalent idea that the GM is not supposed to be an advesary,  Well in Gamist design, would this not be a false idea? Indeed the GM IS the advesary and as long as he or she is empowered by the rules to act in that manner, all different choices can be presented.

If a GM is not supposed to off the group, then the easiest road to victory IS to go in guns blazing.  End Game is whats its all about.

I definitely agree with Mike that making a good Gamist RPG is more difficult then many people belive it to be.

Sean

[Mike Holmes]

Sean, Operatonal is definitely a phenomenon, but the term is even more decidedly military than the other two. As someone said, tactics are the smaller considerations of moves that address portions of larger play that's then said to overall be strategic. This can have as many layers as you like. At each level, the moves are tactics as compared to the larger overal plan of strategy. This strategy is then tactics for the next larger scale of strategy. In this way, tactical and strategic only refer to relative scales of decisionmaking.

IOW, you forgot to add the Theatre level of operations. ;-)

Different RPGs will have different layers, and in some cases it's going to be blurry, too, as to which is which. So that's a good point. It's not just one layer of strategy and one layer of tactics. You can have all sorts of layers, with all sorts of interactions.

So the overall point is well taken. Have as many layers as it takes to make play interesting. Have them interact in interesting ways.

Watch out, however for overload again. There is a point at which the player just can't keep up and becomes disinterested because there's just too much to deal with. Layers of S&T are one way that things can become untennable quickly (though by no means unique in this).

Mike

[Drifter Bob]

My take on this is that where the mechanics exist, as in the mercantile stuff in Traveller, or the Persuasion / Rebuff in Dying Earth, that is really nothing more or less than an opportunity to use it in a creative way.  

Breaking things down into operational and strategic levels must be done very carefully if at all, because I think it threatens to distrupt the aspects of the game which are what I would think of as a role playing game.  They might make cool games of other types, however like a board game.  

I think however board games could be the fodder for RPG's to borrow much interesting mechanics from.  Another model I was recently thinking of was the espianoge system built into the Doom board game.  That was a lot of fun.  I think there are a lot of ways this stuff could be integrated into rpgs in a way which would make them much more fun and expand them way, way beyond the old paradigm of fighting rules and spell rules and whole games spent wandering around from one fight / magic duel to the next.

It is up to you folks as game designers to tame and harness all these nice crunchy bits and smoothly integrate them into an enjoyable RPG experience....

JR

[Drifter Bob]

I'm sorry, I meant the espianoge system in the Dune game.  @Doh!!