diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/elements01nov02.txt --- /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 + +_/Advertise with RPGnet/_ + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + 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? + +Go to forum! +RPGnet + +_/Advertise with RPGnet/_ + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + Available Forums +* About the Industry * + Forum Folder + + Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through + business. + +* Columns * + Forum Folder + + Individual discussions for the RPG columns + +* Outside RPGnet * + Forum Folder + + Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet + +* RPGnet * + 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 * + Posts: *40163* Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24* + + Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly, + folks! + +* The RPGnet Awards * + Posts: *235* Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07* + + Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards + +* Trouble Tickets * + 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 + by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03 + * Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes) + by Brian Gleichman, + 14jan03 + * Layers of Design by + Brian Gleichman, 11dec02 + * Elements of Tactics + by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02 + * Elements of Complexity + by Brian Gleichman, + 20sep02 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. +