Thursday, February 12, 2009

Tactics & Strategy in Game Design- Part I: Introduction

In the old wargame era, games were divided into Tactical, Operational and Strategic scales matching the rough military use of the terms. By scale, we mean the size of the individual maneuver element be it man, squad, company, division, etc. Strategy (in addition to scale) also tended to add in production, diplomacy, and the other factors of war.

These definitions have little meaning when examining RPGs since by definiton RPGs default to the individual scale. However Tactics & Strategy have meanings outside those of scale, and those are much more useful to us here.
  • Tactics- 1b: the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end
  • Strategy- 2b the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
We'll also need the definition of Stratagem- 1b: a cleverly contrived trick or scheme for gaining an end.

To put this in game terms, let’s use examine chess using with these definitions (instead of its more common one focused on long range vs. short term goals).

Here Tactics can be referred to as playing the board, i.e. the proper moving of one’s pieces towards the end of winning the game. This would include attacking the opponent's pieces, guarding your own, attacking and pinning the enemy, etc.

Meanwhile Strategy can be referred to as playing the man, i.e. attempting to deceive the opposing player as to your goals or playing upon a weakness of his individual style of play. He may really like using his Knights, take them away in an early exchange. Or move such that he expects a King-side attack, then switch to an Queen-side one after he’s committed his pieces.

Moving these concepts to rpgs, the same principles apply.

Thus tactically one uses the abilities of the character (as defined by the rules) to reach a desired end. Typically this is winning in combat although other means are possible. Questions here involve where you move, which attack to use, etc.

Strategically however you’re interested in exploiting your foe by tricking him or playing upon his weaknesses. In a rpg a foe can be the GM who’s running your opponents, other players, or even NPCs/PCs if the person running them is role-playing a different set of knowledge and weaknesses other than his own.

Referencing Layers of Design, it’s rather clear from this that Tactics are a Game Layer consideration. They are concerned completely with the actual state of the board and what moves can be made. Meanwhile Strategy is a Near-Game or a Near Meta-Game Layer consideration. It's concerned with what your opponent is or is not thinking.

From this break down it should be clear that one would use different mechanics from Game Design PoV to enhance Tactics than one would use to enhance Strategy.

Next: Elements of Design- Tactics

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

As a wargamer, I know there are at least two other categores we use. Skirmish level games for 1:1 miniatures battles and Grand Strategy games like Axis & Allies. But your three categories do cover these. I'm just being picky.

Actual military simulations tend to be divided by whether it's a field exercise or a simulation. Field exercises have troop involvment (with roleplaying), while simulations almost never involve troop and not necessarily any roleplaying between the planners.

Gleichman said...

Professional LARPing for the Win.

I recall reading about the Red Flag exercises, where the aggressor squadrons would dress, eat, and even talk Russian. Quite interesting.