Gettin' old, tactical to strategic preference

[Callan S.]

I was wondering about 'old school' type material the other day and the aging gamer.

Old school stuff, not to be exact, includes stuff like funky little 'get around behind them and flank' or 'prop your sniper rifle on a box to get a bonus' or 'Open door, chuck grenade in, pull back, wash rinse repeat', etc.

Now be honest, in mostly a gamist light, these were damn fun when you first did them. Well I bet a huge majority of people loved this stuff, like I did.

The thing is, we've learnt all those moves. The first time around it was fantastic being rewarded by the system for doing X move. Wow, being rewarded for smart thinking. But as you get older and do these things more often, it's not rewarding, it's just standard procedure. There's nothing really new to learn and if there is, older gamers have often learnt it prior to play by reading the system and running very accurate simulations in their head. Actual play offers nothing in addition, which is really bad if you think about it.

However, this is all at the tactical level. Combat systems in most RPG's focus on this and our own early gaming career, when tactical was really new to us, taught us that tactical is good, tactical is where it's at. But it isn't any more, really. Weve learnt the tricks, got the memories, wearing the T-shirt.

So I'd like to look at expanding from tactical toward strategic and the big picture. I'll put a quick three step scale here and then mention a pitfall after:

1. Fighting an orc in a 10x10 room
2. Fighting an orc clan with a platoon of men
3. Managing the diplomacy and conflict of a continent spanning war, with orcs. Damn orcs!

Right, now this heads you in the right direction. However, I get the strong impression that it sounds great to be economic and simply design rules around the second level, leaving the tiny skirmish stuff alone entirely. I want some feedback on a hypothesis that this is actually a very bad idea indeed.

I get the strong impression that if you remove the first level from the rules, the second level simply becomes the first level. Once you eject the requirement for older players to engage level 1 knowledge, they will simply absorb completely the level 2 rules. Without level 1, the probability map of level 2 is so much more simple, there is nothing new to learn there (easy to learn it all before play by reading).

Still, there is the problem of level 1 stuff is just going through the motions so as to make level 2 really engaging. If you heavily abstract level 1 stuff so as to speed it up, it then simplifies the probability map, so your in the same postion AND level 2 stuff isn't as intersting now (easier to grasp).

If you've kept up so far, how do you get around that last problem? Have the second level significantly effect the first, so the fun parts sort of rub off some of their fun on to the more dull first level?

I'm really betting it's easy to suggest the removal/so abstracted its basically removal of the first level. But really, that just leaves you in the same position, the second level becoming the first now as the easily understood/humdrum part. That sounds right to me, what about the forge?

[Dauntless]

Well, I'm developing a computer game that incorporates gameplay from the strategic down to the personal level.  I'm calling it STRIKE (for Strategic, Tactical and Roleplaying Integrated Kit Engine).  In it, you basically play a general of your armed forces.  Not THE general, nor will you have total authoritarian control of your country's economics or diplomacy.  You can put in requisitions for war material and also determine the logistics of getting war material from the homelands to the warfront, but you're not going to micromanage the economy.

In essence, you the player are represented by an Avatar on the screen.  You also have several Commanders of various ranks.  The trick to my wargame is that it requires a high level of Aritificial Intelligence (which in the Pen and Paper roleplaying game could be alleviated by having other players assume the role of these Commanders).  It requires a lot of AI because you the Avatar only issue orders to your Commanders, who in turn actually do the nitty gritty of the work.  In other words, this is the strategic element of play...only looking at the big picture.

As the ranks of the Commanders gets smaller, the level of play becomes more and more tactical.  In fact, you can "hop into" any of your Commanders and the scale of the game will be adjusted.  In my game, there are Units, Clusters and Battle Groups.  Units are your individual fighting pieces, like tanks infantry squads, Single artillery pieces, etc.  Clusters are the organized groupings of several Units combined.  Clusters are always commanded by a low-ranking Commander.  In turn, several Clusters make up a Battle Group and depending on the size of the Battle Group, are headed by mid to high ranking Commanders.  If you jump into the Commander of a Cluster, in essence you are playing at the roleplaying level, or the smallest tactical based level.  This would be a first person view wherein you see exactly what your troops would see.

The key to my game is that the Avatar has no God-like control over anything.  He only knows what his subordinates know if they are able to tell him.  His Commanders can only follow his orders if they receive his orders and are in good enough morale to follow them.  He can only communicate with his Commanders if the level of technology of communication allows it.  In other words, there's no guarantee that if the Avatar clicks on his Commander to activate it (to give it Orders) that the Commander will respond.  And even if he can, the Battle Group may not necessarily obey.

I think many of these ideas can be incorporated into the play you are looking for.  I think that the tired feeling of tactical competency comes from the fact that there is no uncertainty.  In other words you tell your character to pop smoke, find the ditch and lay down suppressing fire for the other characters behind you and it all happens perfectly and automatically.  The only fear (in the real world) comes from the possibility of getting hit.   But if you can effect fear to your character, make him pause, stumble or hesitate then it becomes another ballgame.  While movies have done this so much it has become cliche, the "drop the keys" affect has this same "what the F*&K are you doing!!  Get up, get UP!!!" to the audience and could do the same to you as a player.

That's why I'm a big proponent of the idea of not always having 100% control of your character(s).  It eliminates the complacency we have in regards towards our actions.  We have to direct our actions in uch a way as to minimize these losses of control and if we do lose momentary control, then we have to try to overcome these obstacles.

[timfire]

1. Fighting an orc in a 10x10 room
2. Fighting an orc clan with a platoon of men
3. Managing the diplomacy and conflict of a continent spanning war, with orcs. Damn orcs!

I don't have much time, but I wanted to pop in with a quick comment. I think you may be confusing the level of strategy with the overal scale of the battle. The difference between the three examples you give above isn't the level of strategy, but rather the scale of the fight (individual> squad> Nation-wide). Within each of those 3 scales you would use different sets of technique/ tactcs/ strategy.

Using your first example, fighting an orc in a 10x10 room:
Technique: Throwing a punch
Tactic: Using a block-punch combo
Strategy: Soften the orc up with a few punches to the stomach before throwing in that right cross to the head.

[Dauntless]

Ahhh, the semantics of tactics vs. strategy :)

We used to go over this in great lengths on the gamedev.net forums, so I thought I'd chime in here as to my own definition as applicable to my own game.

I've always referred to the strategy portion of my rules as a "Combat Leadership Simulator".  I've taken the root meaning of the word strategy (from the greek strategos) to mean "Generalship".  In turns this means the leadership of large numbers of men.  Tactics to me is the implementation of strategy.  To somewhat simplify things, strategy is the planning, tactics is the implentation of those plans.  So in a way, I agree with both timfire's and Noon's definitions of strategy.

There's definitely a scale involved.  While it's correct to say that even in one-on-one fights there is a strategy involved if you only look at strategy as the plan of combat, it misses the true etymology of the world which is generalship.  So strategy in the classical sense means the control of large groups of men and how to use them effectively.

What complicates this issue more is that in modern warfare not only do they group things tactically and strategically but also operationally, or what Napoleon would have called "Grand Tactics".  My game actually deals with Operational Warfare with some strategy elements involved.

[Callan S.]

Thanks for your responces Dauntless and Timothy,

I think the main thing I wanted to impress with using the words 'tactics' and 'strategy' was the onion skin effect, where each layer co-ordinates the manouvers of the inner layer, with a seperate plan. Obviously the onion can have many layers, so really its hard to call any of them tactics (except the inner most layer...wherever that is) or any of them 'the' strategy. The semantics aren't so much important as the idea of upper layers managing lower layers.

So with that in mind, that's why I gave the rough example with layers 1, 2, 3. Keep in mind, it doesn't matter what 1, 2 and 3 actually are, its just that those are the layers of management.

To sum up my post: Older gamers tend to find the first layer boring...they enjoyed the challenge of it years ago, but now they know it all too well.

However, if you remove or abstract level one, it makes level two as easy as level one to learn and get bored with.

The proposed problem: Level one is boring, but its needed to maintain the excitement of level two and higher. How do you sex up level one stuff?

[Sydney Freedberg]

First point: Fear & Confusion! (see http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10977 and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11420). These apply just fine at the strategic level -- perhaps even more so, given the commander's removal from the actual events and the time lag as orders move down while reports move up and events move on. Arguably the French lost in 1940 because the German blitzkrieg moved too fast for the rigid French staff system to adapt and the French command system had a collective nervous breakdown.

Second point: Not just tactics vs. strategy. Soviet, and now US, doctrine recognizes an intermediate level, "operational art" -- the art of a campaign within a war, e.g. the Western Front in WWII, or Iraq within the current global conflict. And political scientists talk about "Grand Strategy," which is the long-term, often multi-generational approach of an entire sovereign entity to the world, e.g. containment during the Cold War, or empire-building by the Romans (strategy at this high a level is often the result not so much of any conscious Grand Plan as it is the result of lots of smaller ad hoc choices steered by unconscious cultural-political biases).
The most articulated division of levels I've seen is

individual
tactical (squads and companies)
grand tactical (an entire battle, e.g. Waterloo)
operational (a series of battles, e.g. the Western Front)
strategic (an entire war)
grand strategic (a world-wide strategy encompassing several wars over many yeras -- and other wars avoided)

The real point: If you want to capture the difference between tactical and strategic, it's not just about scale. It's not just a quantitative difference: It's a qualitative one as well. Very different factors come into play as the scale changes. The strength of my sword-arm matters at the individual level; the strength of my economic base matters at the strategic level; the strength of my cultural identity matters at the grand strategic level.

The bottom line: Maybe you don't need to keep the "level one" stuff at all. Make your game about the factors that matter at the higher level you choose, and just include the tactical issues as minor modifiers -- even simply say, "tactics are what the die roll depicts."

[Callan S.]

Hi Sydney,

Ah, thats sort of the answer that I mentioned before, one which continues a problem which I haven't illustrated all that well yet, but I will here:

Okay, I'll go through some levels and give rough system mechanics to each.

1. The individuals strength. It gives a bonus and is added to a d20 or some other die type. There are various target numbers to roll over with this.

2. The units morale strength. Again, there's a bonus to a D20 roll or something and target numbers.

Okay, now say the target number is 15 or such. Once you have your strength and moral bonus, you could sit down and do the math on passing level 1 AND passing level 2 (hit the individual orc, then route them), because you need to do the former before getting a shot at the latter.

Okay, now although my example is simple, consider how long it would take to do the math.

Now, imagine that we abstract level 1 out.

2. The units morale strength. As before it's a bonus to a D20, AND in addition, if the unit has the 'strong' attribute, you get +1 to this roll.

Sounds good and simpliefied, right?

Consider how quickly you can determine the odds of success.

Yes, you can figure them a lot quicker than before. In fact you can do the math on them as quickly as if you were only focusing on level 1 strength rolls before...the level which is boring to more experienced gamers. You've effectively made level 2 into level 1.

Now my examples were simple, but imagine if level 1 has ten rules to it and so does level 2. Imagine trying to figure out the probability map of it all before game or in play. Much trickier.

Now imagine taking those ten level 1 rules and abstracting them to just a bonus or two in the level 2 rules. How much easier is it to figure the probability map now? Much easier, to the point (quite possibly) where the experienced gamer can figure it all in their head and running a squad of men is as boring as running one man in a 10x10 room.

So the prob is, you just can't skip to the good stuff by abstracting away the boring stuff. You just make the next layer up easy to figure out/boring, by doing so.

[NN]

Anyone read Edward Luttwak's "Strategy: The Logic Of War And Peace"?

Simply put, the essence of Strategy is the deliberate weakening of your forces in one area to gain advantage in another.

eg:
- concentrating your forces in one area for an offensive means taking them away from others
- deliberately doing things in a non-optimal way (choosing the 'bad' road, attacking at night, not preparing fully, etc) in order the gain a greater advantage by surprise.

Then, theres the issue of the different levels that Sydney mentions - Ill have to reread to say more than that there is conflict between them and success at one level doesnt necessarily lead to success at another - and can even lead to failiure at another. For example, German initial success in North Africa was a defeat at the level of Grand Strategy, by diverting forces to a peripheral theatre.

What this means for RPGs Im not quite sure: but my feeling is that Strategy lies in the Setting, not the Mechanics.

[NN]

Noon, I think the answer is that the Grand Strategy Of The Fourth Great Orc War isnt really about winning battles by killing orcs in the most efficient manner. Its about winning thw war, which is all Setting.

[Sydney Freedberg]

....imagine if level 1 has ten rules to it and so does level 2. Imagine trying to figure out the probability map of it all before game or in play. ....Now imagine taking those ten level 1 rules and abstracting them to just a bonus or two in the level 2 rules. How much easier is it to figure the probability map now? Much easier, to the point (quite possibly) where the experienced gamer can figure it all in their head and running a squad of men is as boring as running one man in a 10x10 room. So the prob is, you just can't skip to the good stuff by abstracting away the boring stuff. You just make the next layer up easy to figure out/boring, by doing so.

Hrrrm. I see your point, but I think there's also an unstated assumption here that may just be wrong: that the fun of the game lies in figuring out how best to use the mechanics for advantage, and that therefore you run out of fun when you've mastered the rules, which in turn means more rules means more time having fun. It's a very Newtonian concept of the game-world as finite and knowable.

But let's get quantum instead. Surely it's possible to have relatively simple mechanics which nevertheless interact in complex and even chaotic, hence unpredictable, ways? (Rather like a few one-dimensional lines combining to create a three-dimensional figure). I'm not sure complexity of rules is necessary to create complexity of situation and thus interest of challenge.

(GNS note: We're getting very Gamist here. At least I am. I think, Noon, you may be wrestling with residual Simulationism that does not serve your Gamist ends. But then I barely understand GNS theory myself).

[simon_hibbs]

I've layed a number of operational level roleplayign games, and written and run one myself. The key for me is that they are roleplaying games. Realy the combat game mechanics are a low priority for me because I'm not running or playing a wargame. Anything  more complex than DBA as a combat game engine would be  a distraction from the fact that what the game is realy about is the inter-personal relationships between the commanders, their aids, advisers and the often conflicting goals and agendas they are all pursuing.

Simon Hibbs

[Callan S.]

Hi Sydney,

Oh yeah its gamist ( :) ), but you've gotten me wrong on the sim part. I only want the lower layers there to make a more complicated probability map. I don't want them because the 10x10 simply must be represented. Your absolutely right, you don't need complicated rules to have really complicated results from them. But you can in my example that the reduction in how complex the rules were didn't do this. I just mentioned having more rules because, although there is a better way to do it, more rules do tend to lead to more complex outputs. Smaller rules that do the same or better are possible...its just that I think they are a lot harder to design (so I tried to keep the example simple and not mention them)

I'll pitch what I mean in another way here. The 10x10 room is boring (well actually its still fun for me, but not as fun as it used to be). But the tiny scale effects it has can disrupt greater plans. Remove those tiny effects (as boring as they are to play out) and the greater plans aren't going to get disrupted and become easy enough to master that they become bored.

I can think of one game where I think the designer ran into this very same problem, but his approach to solving it is a bit different. I'm talking about riddle of steel. I really think Jake Norwood got sick of the 10x10 room and went on to produce an interpersonal combat system which is chess like in its massive probabilty maps.

So instead of adding extra layers of complexity, he sexed up the first interpersonal layer.

I'm not sure I want to go this way, in the spirit of 'system does matter', the more you sex up the first level, the more people are going to focus on that level because its rewarding enough on its own, in terms of providing challenge. Expanding out from the interpersonal into other higher levels would really be enjoyable for gaming outside the 10x10 room in a more satisfying way than the traditional GM handwaves/makes it up as he goes along big picture stuff.

Hi Simon,

...from the fact that what the game is realy about is the inter-personal relationships between...

I don't think I agree with the 'fact' part.

[timfire]

Noon, I'm a little confused but what you're talking about. Are you discussing the interaction between group tactics and individual tactics (or vice versa)? Or are you asking about the interaction between specific tactics/techniques and broad tactics/ strategies?

While I'm not trying to debate the meaning of the words 'tactics' or 'strategy,' I think it would be helpful to differentiate the scale of a battle (individual/ squad/ army) with the level of detail (what I was referring to with technique/ tactic/ strategy).

I think there is a difference between scale and level of detail.

[timfire]

You know, something else I've noticed while re-reading this thread. Noon, you seem to have this idea that tactics are something you can 'master.' I really like what NN said:

... Strategy is the deliberate weakening of your forces in one area to gain advantage in another.

I think if set up your potential tactics in a way that certain tactics are always better than others (like the grenade through the door example), you will run into the problem that once the tactics are learned, the game becomes boring. I think that's because once you learn the fool-proof tactics, there's no more thinking involved.

Instead, if you can set up your tactics in a way that everything has a plus and a minus, where you have to risk something to gain victory, than the focus of the game will become about out witting your opponent, not memorizing tactics.

Do you know what I'm trying to say? I hope so because its getting late and I can't think. I hope I haven't drifted the thread too much.

[Callan S.]

Scale is best thought of as the mechanics of one conflict relying on resources that are left over or generated by another conflict. That conflict is usually described as smaller, but in terms of detail it might be more detailed or less. Resources are things like how many HP you have when you get out of the 10x10 room, how many men you have after fighting the orc clan, etc.

How many HP you have left affects the descision of the player whether they lead from the front or rear when fighting the orc clan for example, which can effect that level of conflicts moral system.

Ie, how well you fought in the 10x10 room can drastically effect the orc clan fight. As the player fights in that 10x10 room, they could need to re-evaluate their grander strategy.

The combinations of two conflict handling levels increases the probability map considerably, as they rely on each other.

The actual detail level of each obviously contributes to the map. But its the interelation thats more important to focus on rather than trying to bulk up on detail.

On weakening in one place for an advantage in another: If you think about it, the grenade example is that. Your using up a grenade on a potentially empty room (when you use this as a default clearing tactic), making a hell of a lot of noise and defening yourself to potentially very important background noises. There's pluses and minuses.

But the thing is, it works out being more plus. You can't exactly have a system where all tactics are equal all the time...whats the point of choosing between them? If there's no greater tactic, you can't input anything as a player, a coin could do it.

And when they are roughly equal in the system but some become better options when they come into contact with the game world situation, well you have a problem there. Thats why certain tactics become better, because the situation presented consistant reward the same strategy, because the game world is consistant. Yes, it would be terrible if there were explosive barrels in the room you chuck a grenade in, should have thought your way around it.

But the thing is, in real life you don't try to have perfect plans, you have robust plans. Perfect plans fall apart at first contact, and you don't have the time to make them. In game its the same, except for some gamers who check for traps on every floorboard, you have a robust plan and you go with it. Anything where the GM makes things inconsistant to 'make people think because of blah' rewards slower play. Slower play is just as boring as before. Spending a session clearing out one corridor isn't any sexier than clearing out a whole building without really thinking.

So you throw that grenade into the room, the barrels explode and kill you and the GM punishes you for what the system and his previous consistancy rewarded. Meh.

Anything where the GM challenges the players and does so without delay is more than likely a product of him and not the system itself. What they had to think about was provided soley by him, and not in any part by the system.

However, if the GM can apply apt pressure at several levels of conflict, even with consistant world delivery, small fluctuations butterfly effect into the other conflict layers.

And I have no idea what NN ment about it all being setting. Really.