--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/draft/elements01nov02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
+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.
+