This one was touched off by this thread. In that thread, Chris is pointing out how hard it is to make a balanced game. I agree, but worse than that, I think that making a good Gamist RPG isn't easy in the first place, and that few have done it right. As usual in this series of rants, I'm posting this like so for reference, because it's something that I say a lot and don't want to have to type again if I need to say it to somebody. Discussion is welcome, however, if someone really wants to say something about the topic or if they find it controversial.

-----
Designing for Gamism Ain't Easy
RPGs are hard to make really challenging in a Gamist sense. Most, in the name of making things less boring, have too few variables to make them a challenge. Challenges usually break down into combat or other challenge segments.

Combats, individually, often have the minimum of strategy to them, and sometimes even that is decided before hand. That is, if you have spells memorized or other such preparatory dcisions, you've already made the strategic decision, and the tactical decision of which to use is almost always obvious. Instead these decisions go back to being strategic then and guessing how much challenge is left in the adventure (which is often done totally in the dark), and hence whether you should use your best ablative resources.

The only tactic that makes sense in attrition games is to reduce the enemy's numbers of attacks first. To that extent, "good play" becomes making sure that PCs gang up on opponents as much as possible. After that you try to make sure that characters with more vulnerable and valuable resources are exposed to the least danger (fighters in front, wizards in back). Then you match up attacks with susceptibilities to attacks. This is so elementary that most master it after only a session or so. If they haven't, they're not "Gamists", and don't care.

Again, this simplicity means that most RPGs are actually more strategic than they are tactical. Which would be fine, except that the strategy is often rendered moot by the fact that the open-ended nature of the games mean that you can often just retreat at any time to get new strategic reserves. Meaning that much of the challenge becomes a matter of bravado, or seeing how far you can push into the adventure before being repulsed by it. "Winning" becomes finishing the whole adventure without retreating once or somesuch. But balancing out entire adventures so that the minor tactical and strategic choices that the players have are meaningful in this way is so difficult as to be laughable. Most GM's just make them too hard, and then bail the PCs out when they're in over their heads through a combination of bad tactics and fudging.

Well, that's what I used to do.

And all the tactics are so elemental that, as I said above, even if you can figure out how to make "balanced" encounters, they still aren't challenging - they're just closer. The players play the same best tactics over and over until they run out of strategic resources.

Some games improve on this some. Movement issues come into play in some games, which greatly increases tactical choices available and viable. But, often, this is the first thing to go in the name of making the RPG less of a "miniatures" game. Well, sure it's faster - it's also less of a challenge. Other games have more complicated rules for manipulating character resources. And so on. In each case where there's an increase in complexity to make for more challenge, there's another game somewhere claiming to be superior because it's eliminated that part of the game.

Usually this happens in the name of Simulationism or something (and that can really drain the challenge out of a game). But as often it's because the challenges presented by the original games are boring. That is, the complexity included increases challenge, but not in a very interesting way and certainly not in proportion to the increase in fun due to the increase in Challenge. Again, when Sim and Gam mix you can get some intense complexity that actually make it very difficult to create challenging situations.

I could cite a jillion things, but, just for instance, take Rolemaster Spell Points. By the time a character is at a reasonable level to cast spells, they'll have so many Spell Points that they'll never be in jeopardy of falling into penalty territory due to fatigue - much less be in jeopardy of running out completely. A typical Stat will give you the ability to cast a spell equal to your level 7 times a day. At that level if you don't have a x2 multiplier, you're a piker. So you can cast your best spells 14 times a day. All in the name of it "making sense" for higher stats to get more spell points, etc. Now there's no challenge in terms of Spell Points as a resource. Not that there would be much anyhow, again, as the caster really never has any idea of just what the GM has in store.


The other sort of challenge is the non-combat sort. The problem with these is that they tend not to relate at all to the other sorts of tactics and strategy in the game. Or are just drains on resources. How often is a trap an actual tactical challenge? Either you say that you check the hall, or you don't, that's the player's challenge (leading to either obsessive seeming behavior or failure). These just don't add to the challenge much. When they do, they're often game themselves. I myself used a Rubik Cube as a prop in a game to put a challenge in. How many scenarios have the PCs as "human Chess pieces"? Sure these can be challenging, but this has nothing to do with the rest of the system.

The thing that's annoying is that this is all avoidable. Look at TROS. With little real complexity, certainly not an un-enjoyable amount, Jake has created a game with Gamist elements that rival chess in the "easy to learn, difficult to master" element. With a bit of effort one can make for intense challenges if one wants.

The point is that designers need to decide what the arenas for player challenge are, in the Gamist sense, and make those things interesting challenges in terms of having a strategy that needs to be learned and can improve over time. Not just your standard resource management, which is all too easy to play perfectly (and is boring because we really don't want to be accountants). And then they should keep that end of it out of the other parts of their game. Don't let Gamism creep into areas that are supposed to be for Simulationism or Narrativism without supporting those things directly (again, see TROS and Nar).

Mike

Just one comment. I've been playing a lot of German board games recently, especially those designed by Reiner Knizia (e.g. Tigris & Euphrates, Samurai, En Garde). I think that there is a lot that RPG designers can learn about system design from these games, especially in the area of Gamism.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

Mike Holmes wrote: Again, this simplicity means that most RPGs are actually more strategic than they are tactical.

Good question, Jack. Strategy is, generally speaking any set of moves that accomplish your goals over the long haul. Tactics are specific maneuvers that win in the short term, usually single conflicts.

Thus if your goal is to defeat the adventure, you'll use an overall strategy. This means that while it may be more tactically sound to kill the orc with the fireball, strategically, you'll hold on to it for something a little tougher down the road.

Does that help? That's not perfectly accurate, but it gets the idea across, I think.

Seth, yep, any other game can be an inspiration for how to build tactics in your game. I look forward to somebody incorporating some of the German innovations into a RPG. A while back I was inspired by card games. Can come from anywhere, really.

I think that, for me, the most interesting idea is that of moving strategy out of just the realm of combat and adventuring and into other realms like Politics, merchantilism, and most importantly "everything all at once".

Mike

I just thought i'd toss in this thought: Fluid magic systems (Like those found in The Riddle of Steel and the Abstraction system from The Burning Wheel) actually do present a tactical challenge of sorts. Essentially they allow you to solve the problem, but the challenge is in balancing your outcome with what you can roll. Yes using a level 3 Vagary will get the job done, but is there any way to accomplish a similar effect with a level 2 Vagary? Though not as challenging as it could be, this is the first thing i tend to think of when i consider "tactics" in RPGs.

I also second your call of TRoS as having tactical combat and would add The Burning Wheel (the two games are incredibly similar,) though not to quite the same degree.

Thomas

Mike Holmes wrote: This one was touched off by this thread. In that thread, Chris is pointing out how hard it is to make a balanced game. I agree, but worse than that, I think that making a good Gamist RPG isn't easy in the first place, and that few have done it right.

Meaning that much of the challenge becomes a matter of bravado, or seeing how far you can push into the adventure before being repulsed by it.

Winning" becomes finishing the whole adventure without retreating once or somesuch.

Mr. Holmes wrote:
Meaning that much of the challenge becomes a matter of bravado, or seeing how far you can push into the adventure before being repulsed by it.

Noon wrote: Can I just say I LOVE this sort of thing. I don't know where I am in terms of gamist play style, but I think Diablo II is pretty gamist. Now, in that it's quite easy to fall back every time you take a little damage, or just sit still and let regen heal you to full. But you don't, because its not fun. Then again, that's a sub optimal choice to go in without full health when its easy to get...and sub optimal choices aren't really gamist IMO. So where does that leave most Diablo II play?

Hi Mike,

I agree that gamist mechanics are NOT easy in the least. Primarily I find that the big difference between most other games(board, card, wargames, etc.) and rpgs is that in the other games, the resources are usually carefully limited and balanced before play.

Rpgs, on the other hand, rarely follow the same philosophy. It's often even worse because most gamist rpgs feel a need to bow to Sim mechanics, which often leaves resources(character ability, resources, challenges, etc.) open ended in too many areas to establish that level of control necessary to balance challenge.

Things that usually make for good gamist design include:
-Multiple strategies/tactics to success
-Chance for the sudden turnaround/comeback
-Significant Karma based mechanics
-Reward, reward, reward

Chris

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: What is the different between strategic and tactical?

Bankuei wrote:
Things that usually make for good gamist design include:

re: Martin's observation of loops, + above mention of board + computer games:

Most Real Time Strategy games - especially Blizzard's herd of the StarCraft and WarCraft lines - exploit this mercilessly. And, on the extreme opposite end of the scale, most of the 1-on-1 fighting games (Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, et cetera) use a version of this as well (High Attack beats Low Block and so on).

re: main topic

I think we can pretty much agree that most any traditional games - board games, video games, card games, whatever - are great source material for trying to design a game that caters to a Gamist mode of play. But that should be another thread of "I think THIS would be useful to look at" since it's not really discussion about the rant.

Heya Mike,

Something occurs to me about a design element no one else has mentioned, but which you bring up numerous times: the players never know what the GM has up his sleeves in terms of resources, so it makes for unsatisfying Gamist play -- the challenge isn't up front, or rather, the use of tactics are purely shots in the dark for an overall strategy.

If that sounds right about what you're saying to you, I present that in ORX, the players know up front exactly how much firepower the gamemaster has available to him at any given moment. I think it rocks, at least, because you know what has to be done to win, you can see the distribution of resources across the board and strategize to match. It becomes more a matter of skill than of luck (though obviously luck plays a part considering that you still roll dice), but the use and timing of those resources, of out-guessing your opponent and optimizing your moves and your resources, comes to the forefront: will he or won't he play that d20 during this Conflict? Will he or won't he try to boost his roll with extra dice? How much will you gamble in response? How much will you put on the table knowing how much he has?

So, it isn't completely up-front in terms of what you're facing specifically, but you know what moves or choices might occur given the available choices and material available to your opponent, and have to plan accordingly -- alot like chess in that regards. Thoughts anyone?

anonymouse wrote: I think we can pretty much agree that most any traditional games - board games, video games, card games, whatever - are great source material for trying to design a game that caters to a Gamist mode of play. But that should be another thread of "I think THIS would be useful to look at" since it's not really discussion about the rant.

quozl wrote: So who has and why? Examples would be good here.

Response 2 in series.

Noon wrote: Can I just say I LOVE this sort of thing. I don't know where I am in terms of gamist play style, but I think Diablo II is pretty gamist. Now, in that it's quite easy to fall back every time you take a little damage, or just sit still and let regen heal you to full. But you don't, because its not fun. Then again, that's a sub optimal choice to go in without full health when its easy to get...and sub optimal choices aren't really gamist IMO. So where does that leave most Diablo II play?

And I got the impression the idea is that while the PC's are away, the challenges can re-inforce as well, perhaps changing challenge types, etc (within a reasonable degree though). But its possible this has no effect on what your getting at.

Response 3 in series.

Ben Lehman wrote: BL> I think that the key here is that Gamism is about Challenge, rather than about Victory. Observe the Go player who plays with a handicap to equal the playing field.

Diablo II has the added effect of trying to maximize benefit over time played, which is more complicated and not (I think) directly relevant to TRPG Gamism.

Response 4 in series.

Bankuei wrote:
Things that usually make for good gamist design include:
-Multiple strategies/tactics to success
-Chance for the sudden turnaround/comeback
-Significant Karma based mechanics
-Reward, reward, reward

Response 5 in series.

Martin, good explanation of Strategy and Tactics, thanks. Some would say that Strategies are a set of tactics that you choose to employ to make an overall plan.

anonymouse wrote:
Most Real Time Strategy games - especially Blizzard's herd of the StarCraft and WarCraft lines - exploit this mercilessly. And, on the extreme opposite end of the scale, most of the 1-on-1 fighting games (Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, et cetera) use a version of this as well (High Attack beats Low Block and so on).

Take the popular game Warlords for instance. Once you have more Castles than your opponent you're going to win.

Response 6 in series.

greyorm wrote: Something occurs to me about a design element no one else has mentioned, but which you bring up numerous times: the players never know what the GM has up his sleeves in terms of resources, so it makes for unsatisfying Gamist play -- the challenge isn't up front, or rather, the use of tactics are purely shots in the dark for an overall strategy.

If that sounds right about what you're saying to you, I present that in ORX...

Response 7 (6 was broken off by Ralph's reply).

First, Kirt, that's a good point. All games can benefit by considering any other games. Simple as that.

Valamir wrote: Not to be too tangental, but if you're referring to the PC game Warlords (I through IV) the steam roller effect only really applies to the end game where most conquest games that don't have alternate victory conditions break down.

For most of the game the steam roller effect is mitigated by the up keep cost to garrison all of those castles (or cities in later versions). There is a signficant period of time in the mid game where he with fewer castles has an easier time concentrating his forces and can use this advantage to achieve victory. In fact, growing too rapidly typically results in a paper empire that is easily overwhelmed by a smaller empire with better infrastructure (Warlords IV is the weakest of the games by far and doesn't do this nearly as well as II or III).

Note that you're saying that the person is paying for their expansion. In that case I agree. But if I take one castle with no losses, and you take two, who's ahead? My point is that, beginning or end, having a steamroller effect usually leads to single tactics being the best. Note how lacking Warlords is in this respect (I've not played 4, but from what you say it's actually worse)?

It's not really a lack of tactical information - players obtain that quickly enough by back calculation in most games (Hmmm, a fifteen hit, but a fourteen didn't = AC 2!). Again, it's "encounters". Is there a goblin in the last room, or a giant?

Ben Lehman wrote:

Mr. Holmes wrote:
Meaning that much of the challenge becomes a matter of bravado, or seeing how far you can push into the adventure before being repulsed by it.

Noon wrote: Can I just say I LOVE this sort of thing. I don't know where I am in terms of gamist play style, but I think Diablo II is pretty gamist. Now, in that it's quite easy to fall back every time you take a little damage, or just sit still and let regen heal you to full. But you don't, because its not fun. Then again, that's a sub optimal choice to go in without full health when its easy to get...and sub optimal choices aren't really gamist IMO. So where does that leave most Diablo II play?

BL> I think that the key here is that Gamism is about Challenge, rather than about Victory. Observe the Go player who plays with a handicap to equal the playing field.

Diablo II has the added effect of trying to maximize benefit over time played, which is more complicated and not (I think) directly relevant to TRPG Gamism.

yrs--
--Ben

Mike Holmes wrote: *snip*

Right. You can always make retreat a failure condition (the Princess gets sacrificed). But that doesn't make the tactics any more interesting.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

I think that, for me, the most interesting idea is that of moving strategy out of just the realm of combat and adventuring and into other realms like Politics, merchantilism, and most importantly "everything all at once".

Mike

Two quick thoughts here.

Bob, yes. There've been several discussions of this sort of thing kicked around here. Several threads on Social Combat in the TROS forums, for example - I think this is one of the most promising examples, as well, which is why it keeps coming up. Interesting to note, though, that nobody has yet managed to crack some of the key differences enough to present details, unless it's happened since I last looked for it; detailed tactical resolution remains the domain of combat for most games because although we focus on similarities (innuendo as attack, yadda yadda), the differences are subtler and often derail the design (what do you do to "parry" innuendo?) or simply pile up in a big Sim heap and defeat the purpose.

Not to say it's not doable, but that actually getting fun tactical Gamism out of anything but combat doubles Mike's original point: Gamist systems are harder to make than we think. Noncombat gamist ones doubly so.

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. [As a counterexample, agreeing to have your PC downgraded by five levels would also increase challenge, but would be anathema.] 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."

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). 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.

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?

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. One thought, just as a toss-out from a fictitious example game, that could accomplish that:

The spell "Goodnight," available to all classes, brings you to the party's HeartCamp, a pocket realm where all your damage can be healed and your spell slots regenerated. However, the spell is named "Goodnight" for a reason. When you use it, the game session is over, for you, today. You won't return to the ArenaWorld until the next game session.

Sure, "most efficient" play would have you return frequently to the HeartCamp, rather than risking your life once your resources drop. But by using issues of pride and bringing them right to the front, that's definitely sub-optimal Gamist play. Optimal play is, indeed, "can you hold out (a) 'til last, and (b) 'til the game is called because the GM/players are tired, instead of due to the last player casting Goodnight?" Which is much closer to the indisputably enjoyable, indisputably Gamist agenda shown in Diablo and its cousins. Design for effect.

- Eric

Hmm. Somehow I misses several replies.

greyorm wrote: That's the beauty here -- it doesn't matter. If all the GM has left is a d10, or if all he has is a d4 and a d6, then players can plainly see that -- his resources are all up front, and that's all he has to go after the players with.

using this information relies on some guess work by the players and some gambling, but so does chess ("Is he going to move his King or his Pawn?") and most other pure strategy games.

Adding a question for clarification: by your estimation, is this good Gamist design or failed Gamist design? And why? If the latter, what would make it a better design?

Noon wrote: Can I ask, though, is it percieved that part of gamism can be about choosing your goals (and the harder the goal, the harder the challenge. Thus by choosing the goal, you choose your challenge/handicap?). I tried to read a forge essay on gamism, but I just wont be able to absorb it till I've printed it, so excuse any questions here.

For example, could a player decide to himself that game time (not real time) is important to him, and thus change a lot about the games strategic and tactical levels. I mean, do all gamists have the same goals in play? Can one judge a system to not really be gamist, when it might be, if one is an advocate of certain particular goals?

Noon wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Of course, this might be considered the strategic level.

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.

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

Mike

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

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

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."

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).

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.

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?

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.

Mike Holmes wrote: Last in a series of several reply posts in a row above.

Harlequin wrote: 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.

xiombarg wrote:
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.

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

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

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

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

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