The Forge Archives

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

Quote from: Mike HolmesAgain, this simplicity means that most RPGs are actually more strategic than they are tactical.

This isn't the first time I've seen this.

What is the different between strategic and 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

Quote from: Mike HolmesThis 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.

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

Quote
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.

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?

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

I thought its more of a sliding scale. First place is never retreating, second place is retreating once, etc.

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.

Quote from: Mr. Holmes
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.

Quote from: NoonCan 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

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

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrWhat is the different between strategic and tactical?

Tactical is short-term.
Strategic is long-term.

Note that these layer as well.

Tactics
Strategy which is next layer's Tactics.
            Strategy which is next layer's Tactics.
                         Strategy which is next layer's Tactics.
                                      and so on.


An example is a soldier know how to fight (tactics) and knows how to cooperate with other soldiers (strategy). The soldier's leader knows how to best wield a group of soldiers against a enemy (tactics for the leader, but strategy for the soldiers), and knows how to cooperate with other soldiers and their leaders (strategy). The solder's leader's leader knows how to wield several groups of soldiers against a foe (tactics) and know how to cooperate with others (strategy).

Quote from: Bankuei
Things that usually make for good gamist design include:

Another good one I've seen in multiple separate unrelated areas is a circle of results. Like Rock, Scissors, Paper, which is a three way loop. There's a four way version of this in swordfighting and, I believe, an eight way version as well. In GZG's Full Thrust (SF starship wargame), there's a loop between various combinations of beams & shields, armour and KE weapons, and other combinations.

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?

Quote from: anonymouseI 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.

As an aside, not to hijack the thread, but I'll note that ANY game can benefit from this, not just Gamist ones. Pretender benefitted from thinking about Yahtzee, Cosmic Wimpout, and other dice games, and it is hardly Gamist...

Quote from: quozlSo who has and why?  Examples would be good here.

I don't want to get off on that tangent. I think that the examples are pretty obvious, actually. Like Thomas said, TROS, Burning Wheel and many others that do retain some semblance of real tactics. Even Hero System has some tactics to the movement system and maneuvers, ect.

But the point of the rant is not to pick out which are good ones and which are bad. It's mostly to say that most RPGs just don't have much in the way of real challenges for the players. I think, often, this is what turns some of them into participation-fests. If people want this to be the draw, they hav to really improve on the standard, IMO. OTOH, maybe some folks are just looking for simple challenges - I may just be displaying one of my own preferences here. But I think that the overall point is valid.

I think we could do a whole nother thread if we want to look at how to make challenging designs.

Mike