jeuderologie: draft/elements01nov02.txt@2365462d45a5

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>

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> ]

author	fabien
	Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:24:56 -0400
branch	ecjdr
changeset 93	2365462d45a5
parent 92	bdef1afd1170
permissions	-rw-r--r--