RPGnet <http://www.rpg.net> 	

<http://www.rpg.net/slib/ads/forward-ad.php?nextURL=http://www.gencon.com&imageURL=http://www.rpg.net/images/ads/indy-2006.gif>

_/Advertise with RPGnet/_

 <http://www.rpg.net/ads/info.phtml>

	Reviews <http://www.rpg.net/reviews/> 	Forums <http://forum.rpg.net>

News & Press <http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/press.phtml> 	Columns &

Info <http://www.rpg.net/columns/index.phtml> 	RPG Wiki

<http://wiki.rpg.net> 	RPG Shop <http://shop.rpg.net> 	

<http://www.rpg.net/members/>

      Elements

    Elements of Tactics

*by Brian Gleichman*

Nov 01,2002

    Elements of Tactics

As many know, RPGs had their beginnings in the miniature wargaming

hobby. The first systems were extensions of many of the same concepts

and were highly tactical games in their own right.

The old wargame empires (SPI, Avalon Hill, etc) all but died and those

that survived to a noticeable extent (GW) did so by moving to extremely

simple rules in order to appeal to the widest possible user base. RPGs

(with the exception of D&D) followed the same course with "Story" and

simple mechanics becoming more and more commonplace and rules taking an

ever decreasing importance. Entire game lines became based on such

mechanically shoddy grounds as a core dice mechanic that increased your

fumble chances the more skilled your character became. It seemed that

few noticed and even fewer cared. It almost looks like the need for

solid, let alone tactical, game systems were a thing of the past.

However much of that appearance is illusion. D&D always remained at the

top of the market and new games designs are once again returning to more

traditional styles at least in part. The interest in tactical games

actually is as strong as ever.

A couple of the newest entries into "tactical rpgs" are Riddle of Steel

and Rune. Both games that market themselves in part on their combat

systems. A welcome change of pace for old timers like myself, but are

they actually tactical games? What does one look for? How can a system

design be optimize for it? How do we judge a system's suitability for

tactical play in an era where nearly everything the old wargame

designers learned has been forgotten? We need some standards, or at

least some concepts to used in our judgment.

I'd like to take a stab at it by defining three major elements of

tactical game design, one characteristic, and one thing it is not- in

that order.

//

      /Element 1: Resource Management/

One of the bedrock concepts of tactical play is to make the most gain

with the least expenditure. After all, if you have unlimited resources

and no reason to avoid using them- you can do anything. Being able to do

anything without thought hardly makes for good tactical play.

The exact nature of resources can vary greatly in rpg design. The number

of spells you can cast in a day. The amount of ammo you can carry. The

number of Hit Points you have and the number of healing potions you have

to restore them. At the most basic, there's the number of characters in

play and the number of actions each can take in a turn.

D&D has always been a masterful example of a game design heavily built

on resource management- limited charges on items, limited number of

potions, only so many pre-selected spells per day, etc. D&D forces its

players to decide how to best spend resources at almost every turn.

As a general rule, increasing the number and types of resources you need

to manage increases the tactical play of the game.

//

      /Element 2: Dissimilar Assets/

To study tactical battle one must study combine arms. And combine arms

is nothing but the use of Dissimilar Assets to achieve a goal.

To use a modern warfare as a model: Artillery is powerful and long

ranged- but vulnerability to almost any attack. Armor combines

protection, firepower and mobility into one powerful package- but even

so encounters major problems in certain infantry defended terrain.

Infantry is slow and light on weapons- but can make maximum use of

terrain. Name an asset and you name both strength and weakness in a

single word.

Combining Dissimilar Assets into a functional and dangerous whole takes

skill and knowledge. Failure to do so (like France's failure in WWII)

can be disastrous in the extreme.

Early game designs had Dissimilar Assets as a core feature. D&D with its

classes- Wizards are very different than Fighters who in turn are used

differently than Clerics. Even later games still maintain this to some

extent. Vampire has its clans. Deadlands its gunslingers, hucksters, and

blessed. These games are designed such that each character becomes its

own niche, its own type of Dissimilar Asset that enhances tactical play

when viewed within its own group of player characters.

Other games however consider such stark limits as unrealistic and seek

to reduce all the characters to common terms. Even D&D weakened its

class structure in its latest version although it still remains strong

enough to function as a tactical enhancement.

As a system weakens character niche, it reduces tactical play. Universal

Resolution systems, lack of character differences, sole dominating

weapon selections, all these things can combine to create a tactically

bland experience where the answer to any problem is obvious and

unchanging. Even though such reduction is often done from the standpoint

of realism, a simple look at real world combat would show that it is in

fact a failure from even that perspective- there are no single dominate

weapon, no one solution to every threat, no single plan that ever

survives contact with a foe.

//

      /Element 3: Maneuver/

Managing resources is the bedrock of tactical play. Controlling

Dissimilar Assets each with their own resources is the first step to

being a tactician instead of an accountant. It is however with Maneuver

that one masters the subject. Sadly, it is in Maneuver that most rpg

design perform worse.

At its most basic, Maneuver is getting the right resources into the

right position at the right time in order to maximize your chance of

success while protecting against the same from your opponent.

Of course for Maneuver to matter, you have to be able to maneuver. Many

designs forgo the use of a map completely and either ignore movement or

abstract it out of the realm of character decision. In so doing, the

remove this element of tactics completely from their design.

A design that focuses on tactical movement will likely include rules for

facing (and flank and rear attacks), multiple opponent rules, the

effects of range, the impact of terrain and other factors that can (when

properly used) allow a force to defeat unskillfully played opponents

with greater resources.

//

      /Characteristic: Pace of Decision/

The three elements above, added to the rule system in use determine

something I call "Pace of Decision". Pace of Decision is at its most

simple how fast can the player lose. It's a measure of the importance of

each individual decision and movement.

While a number of factors determine a game's Pace of Decision, how

lethal a system is may be the most important. For example: D&D provides

Resource Management by having Hit Points. However these same Hit Points

reduce the game's Pace of Decision since they act as a buffer to bad

tactical choices. You can lose a few hit points by moving to an inferior

position, but it's easy enough to move again afterwards and use a

healing spell or potion and thus carry on the battle. In other games,

that single bad decision could result in a disabled or dead character.

Hence the Pace of Decision can be said to be Low (D&D like systems where

many hits are needed to kill) or High (one hit means a dead character).

If Pace of Decision is too low, any tactical error of Maneuver or even

Dissimilar Asset can be forgiven since its impact is minor at best. The

winner is almost solely determined by who had the greater resources. On

the other hand if it is too high, the battle is over before it started

with initial deployment likely determining the winner.

The ideal position between these two extremes is one of personal taste.

Indeed, what combination of the three elements above and how that works

with the system's resulting Pace of Decision is a question that can only

be answered by each individual. Everyone has his or her own tastes and

the possible range of answers here is immense. And this explains more

than anything else, why there is room for more tactical games.

//

      /A non-element/

Something this isn't a true Element of Tactics needs special note

because (all too sadly) it is what some people think of when you say the

words Tactical Play.

Rock-Scissors-Paper (RSP) is not tactical game design. RSP design is the

use of options that have provided little or no in-game reason for the

selection of one over the other.

Riddle of Steel for example requires players to drop either a red or

white die to determine if they are attacking or defending.

Top Secret used a combat maneuver matrix (low kick vs. high block for

example) where the result mattered- but the player could only base his

decision upon what maneuver he (the player, not his character) thought

the opposing player (and again not his character), would select.

There is a certain skill in using such mechanics, same as bluffing and

mind games are part of poker or chess. However this is playing at the

meta-game level and isn't really part of the game design itself. Chess

for example includes no rules for psyching out the other player, nor

does poker include mechanic rules determining when to bluff.

In addition to that fact that this type of mechanic is playing at the

meta-game (using information not available to the character, such as

"Joe tends to drop red")- it often completely overshadows the real

game's tactical elements detailed above, thus reducing skill at the game

itself to a sideshow.

The actual effect is to remove a key determing factor of play outside

the game. A worthwhile goal sometimes- but not something that should be

seen as tactical game design.

//

      /Tactical Elements in Combinaton/

Each of the three elements and one characteristic I noted above combine

to produce the final tactical favor of a game system. D&D has high

Resource Management and Dissimilar Assets together with rather low

Maneuver and Pace of Decision. A combination that produces a style and

result that is famous or infamous depending upon one's viewpoint.

Age of Heroes on the other hand has very high Pace of Decision and

Maneuver, medium Dissimilar Assets, and comparatively low Resource

Management. As a result it plays very differently from D&D, so

differently that I've seen D&D players encountering it almost reduced to

a state of shock.

Some games may do completely away with one or more elements. Others will

select completely different mixes. There are a huge number of possible

combinations, a fact that puts the lie to a common statement I've

encountered saying D&D has covered all that needs to be covered in

tactical rpgs. Indeed, it seems clear that the subject has barely been

scratched.

//

      /Finally, an Observation/

If one reads between the lines above, you'd find an interesting common

thought. The core of tactics is providing options (resources, different

assets, movement options)- but its framework is one of limits.

A resource once spent is lost for an important period of time. A

dissimilar asset can't do everything. Requiring maneuver means that you

can't be everywhere. Etc.

The heart of tactics is operating with limits to bring the best assets

and resources to bear at the correct point at the correct time. The

theme of tactics is overcoming limits. Consider that the next time you

look at a game that promises to let you do anything...

      What do you think? <http://trio.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=101>

Go to forum! <http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=101>

RPGnet <http://www.rpg.net> 	

<http://www.rpg.net/slib/ads/forward-ad.php?nextURL=http://www.gencon.com&imageURL=http://www.rpg.net/images/ads/indy-2006.gif>

_/Advertise with RPGnet/_

 <http://www.rpg.net/ads/info.phtml>

	Reviews <http://www.rpg.net/reviews/> 	Forums <http://forum.rpg.net>

News & Press <http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/press.phtml> 	Columns &

Info <http://www.rpg.net/columns/index.phtml> 	RPG Wiki

<http://wiki.rpg.net> 	RPG Shop <http://shop.rpg.net> 	

<http://www.rpg.net/members/>

 Available Forums

* About the Industry <index.php?f=4>*

	  Forum Folder

     Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through

    business.

* Columns <index.php?f=2>*

	  Forum Folder

     Individual discussions for the RPG columns

* Outside RPGnet <index.php?f=82>*

	  Forum Folder

     Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet

* RPGnet <list.php?f=5>*

	  Posts: *118469*    Last Post: *02-01-2006 06:30*

     General discussion about the game industry and where it's going,

    and other topics RPGnet readers would enjoy discussing. 

* Tangency <list.php?f=61>*

	  Posts: *40163*    Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24*

     Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly,

    folks! 

* The RPGnet Awards <list.php?f=84>*

	  Posts: *235*    Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07*

     Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards

* Trouble Tickets <list.php?f=57>*

	  Posts: *741*    Last Post: *01-03-2002 19:00*

     Please let us know any problems with the site. Missing pages, bad

    code, tacky color schemes-- whatever you think is broken. We'll read

    this and fix things. Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Previous columns

    * Elements of Strategy </news+reviews/columns/elements11feb03.html>

      by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03

    * Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes)

      </news+reviews/columns/elements14jan03.html> by Brian Gleichman,

      14jan03

    * Layers of Design </news+reviews/columns/elements11dec02.html> by

      Brian Gleichman, 11dec02

    * Elements of Tactics </news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html>

      by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02

    * Elements of Complexity

      </news+reviews/columns/elements20sep02.html> by Brian Gleichman,

      20sep02

      Other columns </news+reviews/columns.html> at RPGnet

[ Read FAQ <http://forum.rpg.net/faq.php> | Subscribe to RSS

<http://www.rpg.net/rss.phtml> | Contact Us <mailto:www@rpg.net> |

Advertise with Us <http://www.rpg.net/ads/info.phtml> ]

Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved

RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved.