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.