Hi everyone.

This is a theoretical design question, in that it applies to every design, but it happens to apply very concretely to a game that I'm working on, so I feel pretty comfortable posting in in Indie Game Design.

The issue is this:  How much discussion of strategy (let's, for the purposes of this discussion, include tactics into that umbrella, as well) should an RPG text contain?

(aside: I'm not talking about whether or not there should be strategic depth to the rules.  I'm assuming that a game either will have strategic depth, or not, depending on its design goals.  I'm asking if, in a game with strategic depth, the designer should discuss strategy in the game text.)

The concrete example that I'm struggling with right now is <a href="http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/The_Drifters_Escape.php">The Drifter's Escape, as indicated in the header.  In short, there is an enormous amount of strategic depth related to Favors and Demands with respect to the end-game conditions, and based on responses I don't think that anyone except for me is seeing it.  I don't think that this is a problem in terms of playing the game -- it should play just fine without advanced strategic consideration -- but I am worried about what happens when, say, The Devil understands the strategies and the Man doesn't.

(The strategy in question here involves brinksmanship -- being 9 Debt below your opponent is an incredibly strong position, and locking in expensive Demands/Favors allows you to hold that position for a long time.  If only one person understands this strategy, they can effectively shut down most of the GMing power of their other half.)

Likewise, the basic strategy of making all the NPCs wretched and unredeemable was, apparently, invisible to most readers.

So, the question in terms of the game in specific is: Do I discuss this strategy (and other strategies) openly in the rules text?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing this and why?  If you're a designer, what do you think you did with your game, and why?

And also, if you want to talk about it, when is it a good idea and when is it a bad idea?

I'm particularly interested in hearing from Tony, about Capes; Vincent, about Dogs; and Ron, about all his games, as I think that these represent interesting cases (Capes strongly on the side of strategy discussion, Dogs strongly against, Ron's games running a gamut.)

yrs--
--Ben

Hi Ben,

I think we can agree that by "strategy," we aren't talking about Creative Agenda but rather a set of techniques which involve advantage, risk assessment, and long-term consequences.

It's hard to assess one's own design and presentation decisions, but I think I shy away from discussing strategy above a certain level. For example, the Elfs text barely mentions conflict of interest among the player-characters, yet an Elfs game which fails to get this going is, as I see it, failing in general. Part of this is deliberate; after all, Elfs is a satire of D&D and therefore I deliberately built in the common reasons for intra-party strife, as well as included the winking illusion that "we're all a team here." Part of it is less deliberate; I tend to favor the "bar" approach to game design, which is to say, if a reader or player cannot themselves get over a certain bar of understanding, then I'd prefer they perceive the game as broken or uninteresting and just go away.

Sorcerer is certainly written with that bar in mind, and to date, I have received tremendous feedback about how clear and accurate the text is (in terms of private, numerous emails mainly) and also tremendous feedback about how awfully muddy and confusing it is (in terms of few, but strident, internet posting mainly). I use a martial arts analogy, with belts. White-belt Sorcerer means you can roll the dice and play without getting confused about when to roll, and about what, and you at least understand that Kickers drive scenario play. Green-belt Sorcerer means you can roll over victories and decide when and how to use what sorcerous rituals, and back-story and Kickers create explosive situations. And so on. (see? I don't even like to describe the upper levels here; I was going to write them, but decided not to)

Trollbabe, on the other hand, is written such that strategizing and "gut-emotion" play should be identical play-events. The more you go with what "she wants," the more strategizing occurs in terms of long-term consequence, and I want to emphasize that advantage in this sense is not the same as "keep character safe, alive, and happy." Advantage in Trollbabe is strictly measured in emotional satisfaction around the table. I tried to be a lot clearer about that in this text, but again, I also want to let people simply play and arrive at that conclusion on their own.

Now, on to Drifter. My take is this: let it happen. I think that you can only hold hands so much, and very bluntly, my observation of Vincent's experience with Dogs is that if you help people too much over the bar, they sit on it and refuse to move on. In other words, if they don't get it, then all your effort to make it absolutely clear is going to be twisted into horrible contorted shapes of misunderstanding - which since they are superficially plausibly based on your text, will persist and create a culture of such misunderstanding surrounding your game.

I agree with you about the general misunderstanding of scenario design and modification in the game, but I also think you are dealing with the automatic association of cards with winning card games. I've noticed this a lot - as soon as you put cards into people's hands, they try to win a card game. I recognize that your end-conditions are not winning-card-game conditions, but frankly, the only way you are going to get around that is to focus on the SIS rather than on the points.

Paul did a great thing when he made starting Endgame in My Life with Master depend on a condition, then on something that relies on chance (a roll); and also when he made finishing Endgame depend on an SIS event, the death of the Master. There are some lessons in those choices, I think. They are nothing like "When I get 10 points, the game is over" - which are just going to be interpreted as "I win!" by most readers.

Best,
Ron

For what it's worth, I think there's some room for showing applied tactics/strategy in the examples. Like that example in Dogs where it sais: "I shoot you, but I only raise with a 5. You're my brother, after all, and I don't want to kill you." That's not discussing tactics in general, but it's still an eye-opener. It says "hey, think about which dice you put forward" in a very cool way.

- Frank

Ah strategy..  I'm reminded of Magic:The Gathering and the little books that came with it.  They told you the rules and gave you small examples that directly dealt with strategy.  If you have a 1/1 and your enemy has a 1/2, you don't want to attack because you lose your monster, but they keep theirs.  After the example, they tell you that life is important, but effectiveness is also important.  If the enemy attacks and you block, he gains the advantage, when it could have been an even game.  I agree with the whole "bar" scenario Mr. Edwards explained.  There are kids at the local gaming shop who can only see exactly what you show them, and there are some who understand what you show them.  However, the point should be taken that if you show them nothing, that there is nothing to understand.  I'd include some basic strategies, and hint at them to think about it.

I don't necessary think all the strategy should be laid out, so that the players can themselves experience the joy of discovery, of triumph.  But I do think there should be indications as to where thge strategy lies and what kind of strategy is available.  I violently disagree with the "bar" argument, thats simple elitism, and I have no time for it.

I think the Dogs approach is a very good one. It's inclusive in tone -- you feel as though you are being led to your own conclusions about the use of the system. To keep going with Ron's martial-arts analogy, reading Dogs is like getting thrown around by sensei for 30 minutes. You learn a lot by osmosis but nothing is flat-out explained to you.

Then again, I love the strategy section in Capes. Reading that is like watching sensei throw another student around for 30 minutes. You learn a lot by observing the master at a distance. "Oh that's what he's doing when I go spinning back onto my head!"

The Sorcerer "bar" approach is like the beginning of class when sensei talks about technique and you sit and listen. Everything he says is true and good, but it makes no sense until you've done it for a while. It does often make you want to go and do it yourself, though. And nothing he says helps you puzzle out the deeper, mysterious stuff. By the time that kind of talk would help you, you are already there.

So. What to do with Drifter? I really don't know. I think Polaris generally falls more into the Dogs style, and it seems a natural fit for you. Maybe that same approach will work for Drifter, but with a few more direct statements in the examples, like, "Now that your Debt is 9 below his, you really have him where you want him. It's gonna be your show from here on out." The reasons why being 9 Debt down is a good thing can be left for the reader to figure out on their own.

Ben, I think strategy should be included in the game text, but it need not be explained.

What your text was missing the last time I read it was a description of play.  You had lots of very compelling bits of flavor text describing situations, which is manifestly important, but you had no descriptions of those situations actually developing, complicating, or resolving, and you had no examples of how that related to the mechanics of the game.  You gave the readers the scrimmage line and the goal posts, but didn't describe the parts in between.  I think a relatively simple description of play would go a long way to describing the strategies in play without laying them all out in the sun to dry.

On the other hand, I assure you there are strategies that can apply to your game that you aren't even aware of, so writing out a section on strategy itself will almost necessarily be incomplete.  Even though you designed the pieces, you can't know every conceivable way they'll be put together.  I learned this when my wife handed me my ass playing my own game!

Ben,

One point, that I don't think has been made so far, is that you probably don't know all the strategies yet.

I often like strategy sections in documents, but I like them to have the feel of being born from months of playtesting. As though the designer's saying "We played this lots of times and here's a pattern that the players kept falling into". As Drifter's Escape gets playtested, I bet you'll find strategies emerging that you haven't thought of so far.

Garham

Ewww, that 'bar' idea seems a horrible line of thought to apply of what's a reasonable goal - to make the player think of what shit they want to happen and then reach for the system to get it, rather than playing a strategy and just seeing what happens.

Ben, I think if you stipulate the envisioning of game world action first and foremost, you can talk about strategy all you want. However, those strategies will revolve around the game desires of the person who invented them (probably you in most cases). So people still wont want to follow them exactly, because they want different things. Best to emphasize that point as well, that the authors strategies may not perfectly suit any particular players needs.

Are we all talking about the same bar?

Ron wrote:
Now, on to Drifter. My take is this: let it happen. I think that you can only hold hands so much, and very bluntly, my observation of Vincent's experience with Dogs is that if you help people too much over the bar, they sit on it and refuse to move on. In other words, if they don't get it, then all your effort to make it absolutely clear is going to be twisted into horrible contorted shapes of misunderstanding - which since they are superficially plausibly based on your text, will persist and create a culture of such misunderstanding surrounding your game.

Thanks, everyone.  You've clarified the issue a lot for me, either through positives (Oh, that makes sense) or negatives (No, I don't want to do that.)  Now I think I'm done with the thread, unless people who have published game texts want to explain what their personal decisions were, and why they did them.

yrs--
--Ben