News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Gamism and gamer's games

Started by Thierry Michel, April 29, 2003, 11:59:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

jdagna

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

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

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

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

This isn't unpredictable doubt, however.  I'm not talking about merely rolling dice to see who wins.  It's all about the situation, just like in the queen/pawn example.  The better gamer understands how the crunchy bits work, gets in position to use certain bits, and then reaps the benefits.
Justin Dagna
President, Technicraft Design.  Creator, Pax Draconis
http://www.paxdraconis.com

Bankuei

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

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

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

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

Chris

Thierry Michel

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

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

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

Emily Care

Quote from: Thierry MichelNow, I agree that my definition of gamer's games is quite restrictive, and thinking about it I'm not even sure that a non zero-sum game like a RPG could fit in (unless each conflict is taken as a sub-game in itself).
M.J.'s post about his use of AD&D1 is an excellent example of using RPGs for strategic play.  What's necessary seems to be an awareness of the factors involved in strategic situations: placement, terrain, formation, range, physics, suprise, moral, etc.  Is any of that incorporated into any the actual text of the many versions of D&D?  It seems more likely that individual participants would have to be informed about them on their own, and actively introduce these elements.  Designers can do the same, and presumably have in some of the games that have been listed in this thread.

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

--Emily Care
Koti ei ole koti ilman saunaa.

Black & Green Games

Mike Holmes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike
Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.

Jeffrey Miller

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

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

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

Or something like that ^_^

-jeffrey "still only a 29 koa" miller-

Ron Edwards

Hello,

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

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

Best,
Ron

Jeffrey Miller

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

-j-

John Kim

Quote from: Mike HolmesWhat happens at the level of a game like Warhammer is that most players become overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of possibilities and stop considering the moves of each individual unit in detail. Not that one couldn't. You can, actually play Warhammer with the same level of attention to detail that one does with chess or even GO (and I know some maniacs who are like this).  
Hmm.  I haven't played Warhammer, but I am usually far more overwhelmed with choices in a Go game than in an RPG (like say D&D3).  It doesn't seem to me that you really have more choices.  In a Go game there are generally hundreds of options available (max 361, decreasing slowly as the game progresses).  An RPG may exceed this in some cases (say for a high-level D&D wizard), but often it is significantly less.  

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

Quote from: Mike HolmesIn point of fact, GO is a "solved" game via game theory. There's a best way to play, and we know it; just like tic-tac-toe.
...
What you get from GO, I think is a great rate of Strategy per unit of Complexity. That makes it  perhaps the most elegant game (repeat the mantra,"Easy to learn, difficult to master"). Which appeals to some purists. But then you've got purists like me for whom a game of Star Fleet Battles is the Best game because it's the most complex game ever built.
Hmmm.  Go may be "solved" in a theoretical sense, but that doesn't matter for human players if you cannot calculate the optimum move in a reasonable time.  In fact, computer Go programs have been far less successful than computer chess programs.  I would guess the main reason that SFB isn't solved isn't necessarily because it is more strategically deep -- but simply because there are far fewer people interested in solving it, and they have far less time and resources.

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

Paganini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clehrich

Quote from: Kester PelagiusIf the player *only* wanted abstract strategy, why is he playing an RPG in the first place? He'd be better off playing Go or Chess. If he only wanted simulatory strategy there are accurate war-sim games and accurate economy-sim games and so on.
I think what's missing in much of this discussion is that there is another kind of strategy (or a lot more, depending).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paganini

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

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

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

Thierry Michel

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

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

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

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

Emily Care

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

Thanks for raising the bar, again.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Emily Care


ps Paganini thank you for your post on go. absolutely. yes.
Koti ei ole koti ilman saunaa.

Black & Green Games

deadpanbob

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

Emily,

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

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

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

Cheers,



Jason
"Oh, it's you...
deadpanbob"