So I've defined what complexity in game design is, how an individual selects what degree of complexity is best for them, and how a gaming group relates to complexity.
In the process a number of thoughts occurred to me. Counter arguments as it were to some common assertions made online about RPGs. In each there is no doubt room for actual research and collection of data (that no one had done). That hasn't kept people from making the assertions, and it won't keep me from pointing out where they may have gone wrong.
1) What the hobby needs is a simple introductory game.
I consider this to be highly doubtful.
Given that successful game design must reach a state of Complexity Equilibrium with its players to be of long term interest- it's likely that a simple game will quicky bore most, and if that's their first experience- it may turn them off the hobby forever.
There might be room for a 'basic' set, 'advanced' set approach that meets this idea. However that was done by D&D- and then abandoned by D&D. Businesses are driven by costs and income, and that history stands strongly in the way of this concept.
Why would a Basic edition fail? I think the labeling of 'Basic' itself would be as much or more of a turn-off as it would be a suitable introduction. Add in the increased production costs, and it's just not worth it.
2) Splat books are nothing but an money grab from gaming companies.
I also consider this to be highly doubtful.
As a matter of fact, I consider Splat books to be the 'Advanced' with the core rules being the 'Basic' of concept number 2. But it's without the negative labeling, and without a watered down system to start.
The fact that they are released after the core rules also provides on on-going increase to system complexity needed by gamers who have mastered the core rules and are perhaps growing bored of them.
3) You can either role-play or roll-play
Often this is directed towards a specific game system.
This old bit of flame-bait can be seen as nothing more than sour grapes by someone who hasn't mastered a certain level of complexity. It is akin to a checkers players saying that those who play chess can't really play a game because they are so focused on the ways the different pieces move.
Not that one can't roll-play, but when viewed through the lens of Complexity Equilibrium it's clear that such play is a style choice- not a system one.
Finally, a bit of reflection.
If all this applies one would expect that the most successful games would be those who's complexity reached equilibrium with the largest number of players. That these games would have core rules and expansions them that are released over the life span of the edition.
And this is actually the case in the market.
I almost feel smart. If not for the fact that the major game companies figured this out back in the old days...
Showing posts with label Elements of Design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elements of Design. Show all posts
Monday, November 2, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Looking Back: Elements of Complexity
I've sort of backed into a series on RPG Complexity, backed into as I didn't set out to do a series on it- it just sort of happened. Since it's happened, let's do a reprint of an article I wrote for RPGNet back in 2002. There I defined what makes a game complex.
Should have started with this, but better late than never:
Elements of Complexity
Go onto any gaming forum and you'll quickly run into someone making the comment that a certain RPG is "complex." It's not unusual for such a statement to draw replies of disagreement, and it quickly becomes obvious that we have yet another case of people using the same word for very different purposes.
Given how common it is to see the question "How complex is this?", I think it would be useful to explore the term some. Not only might it reduce some misunderstandings, it could even have a direct influence on game design.
It seems obvious to me that complexity in game design is the result of various elements- for that is the heart of exchanges like "Rolemaster is too complex!" "No it isn't, it's just a d100 roll with some charts!" Both people are telling the truth from their POV, and what we're seeing is a simple case of different people looking at different specific sub-meanings of a single word.
For my use, the complexity of a game's design can be broken down into three elements: Implementation, Mass, and Concept.
Each of which has its own characteristics and appeal, the highlights of which I'll detail below.
Complexity of Implementation
This is how difficult the actual mechanical steps are. Let's look at a couple of examples pulled out of the middle of damage resolution:
Example 1: Roll 1d8 and add 1 for every point over 12 in the character's strength. Subtract these points from the target's hit points.
Example 2: Determine which body location on the target was struck, take the weapon's penetration factor and subtract the armor rating for that location, multiple the result by the weapon's impact factor which results in the final Damage Potential, divide the Damage Potential by the target's location Structure Points to get the damage ratio, cross reference the damage ratio on the Ballistic impact chart to determine the wound level and final effects.
In implementation terms, Example 2 is far more complex than Example 1. It has more steps, and those steps include more types of operations (multiplication and division as well as subtraction plus a table lookup). And of course we're talking about more than single digit whole numbers in the second example as well.
Games like Phoenix Command are representative of designs with high Implementation complexity, as are elements of other systems- such as GURPS Vehicles or Hero System Character design, systems that call for many to reach for a spreadsheet instead of pen and paper.
Some people love games with high Implementation Complexity. There are entire websites devoted to characters worked up in HERO while others spend days designing vehicles for their GURPS campaigns- much of this seems to be simply inspired by the joy of creating something and in the mastery of the method.
Yet another common draw for this type of complexity is found in the desire of some people to model in detail specific elements of a game. Not content with the typical high level of abstraction used in many games, they wish to see more detailed influences and a more detailed breakdown of events. Combat in Phoenix Command is a prime example of this type of thought. Here the desire for detailed objective simulation drives the need for complex mechanics.
Complexity of Mass
Rules may be simple to Implement in every case; however, there may be a large number of very specific cases, each with their own simple rules.
Example 1: The system defines all one-handed weapons as doing 1d8 points damage with a +1 strike and +1 initiative bonus.
Example 2: This system defines 50 different one-handed weapons each with their own specific damage (a 1d3 to 1d20 range) with strike and initiative bonuses independently ranging from +0 to +3.
Any game that defines large numbers of simple modifiers (say combat modifiers for position and environment and/or attack options) has increased its Complexity of Mass. Having large numbers of specific powers or spells has the same result- individually each are easy, but in total one is looking at a large number of rules, and for many that is overwhelming in itself.
Complexity of Mass is the easiest and quickest to judge; one can almost weigh the rulebook (however, be sure to leave out the setting information and other fluff). D&D is a good example of this type of complexity, as is Rolemaster with its dozens of charts, each of which uses a simple d100 + bonus mechanic.
Why would anyone want to deal with pages upon pages of rules? Two reasons come immediately to mind.
First, some people love options and different ways to approach things. How often does one hear something like "My last character was a Paladin, I think I'll run a Wizard this time..."? The best way to highlight options is to include them in the rules and this produces a simple relationship- more options mean more pages of rules. The very rules themselves become a reason to expand play. For example, include an extensive set of castle building mechanics and someone is going to play with them just to do something different.
A second reason is pride of mastery. It's difficult to master a lot of rules and even more difficult to keep them all at your fingertips. To some, knowing the rules and using them to achieve a desire outcome is a major source of satisfaction in gaming. The more rules to master and use, the greater the satisfaction.
These two reasons drive the design concepts of entire game lines like D20 and WoD, a fact easily determined by a passing examination of their splat books and other expansions. Indeed, this one element is so connected to D&D that the first reaction I typically see in reviews of high Mass games is to call them a D&D copy, even if mechanically they have little in common.
Complexity of Concept
There are games with few rules, those rules very simple, that are still viewed as complex in the extreme, with uncounted possibilities that take even the greatest of players years to master.
Think Chess.
Mechanically, it's simple to move a pawn. The entire rules for the game can be contained on a few sheets of paper. But which pawn to move? What will the effect be? Those are questions that are far from easy to answer, and the choice can be far from obvious. I refer to these games as Complex in Concept to represent the fact that the difficulty isn't in the "how does one do it," but rather in "what does one do and how much will it affect."
In one sense, all RPGs rate high in this area due to their open-ended nature. Even so, I tend to limit this to those games where the player is presented with a wide number of options under conditions that require a great deal of thought in order to find an optimal choice. Games with complex tactical environments like Heavy Gear top the list here.
Complexity of this type tends to draw players who value the importance of individual decisions in a challenging environment.
Just Plain Complex
Games can be complex in more than one way, and there is a tendency to rate high in others if you rate high in one.
Perhaps the ultimate example was SPI's game Air War, which pegged very high levels in all three measures. Over two hundred pages of small font rules concerned solely with jet era air combat, intricate mechanics to represent the fine details of aerial maneuver, dozens and dozens of aircraft with very specific stats and individual rules, and a very complex tactical environment where each choice could alter the entire course of the game.
While any RPG pales in comparison to that wargame, some examples include Hero System and Age of Heroes. A common combination is Mass and Concept, with the prime example being D&D with its volumes of rules and spell lists (Mass) combined with its detailed resource management (Concept).
Eye of the Beholder
Like everything, how complex a game is depends upon who is judging it. Every person has different levels of tolerance for each of the above elements. Below that tolerance, the game is easy - go above it and it becomes complex.
Additionally different people desire different mixes of complexity. One person may like a fairly high level of Mass and Concept and as low a level of Implementation as possible. Another may want a game that is the complete reverse. Games suitable for each are going to look vastly different from each other.
And of course, there are people who desire low levels of Complexity in all three elements. At their most extreme, games for such people become completely free form.
Knowing the complexity desires of your target players (and attempting to fulfill them) will greatly impact the choice of what games to play, or how to design your own. And hopefully knowing the core elements of what makes games complex will also make it easier to talk about them to others.
Should have started with this, but better late than never:
Elements of Complexity
Go onto any gaming forum and you'll quickly run into someone making the comment that a certain RPG is "complex." It's not unusual for such a statement to draw replies of disagreement, and it quickly becomes obvious that we have yet another case of people using the same word for very different purposes.
Given how common it is to see the question "How complex is this?", I think it would be useful to explore the term some. Not only might it reduce some misunderstandings, it could even have a direct influence on game design.
It seems obvious to me that complexity in game design is the result of various elements- for that is the heart of exchanges like "Rolemaster is too complex!" "No it isn't, it's just a d100 roll with some charts!" Both people are telling the truth from their POV, and what we're seeing is a simple case of different people looking at different specific sub-meanings of a single word.
For my use, the complexity of a game's design can be broken down into three elements: Implementation, Mass, and Concept.
Each of which has its own characteristics and appeal, the highlights of which I'll detail below.
Complexity of Implementation
This is how difficult the actual mechanical steps are. Let's look at a couple of examples pulled out of the middle of damage resolution:
Example 1: Roll 1d8 and add 1 for every point over 12 in the character's strength. Subtract these points from the target's hit points.
Example 2: Determine which body location on the target was struck, take the weapon's penetration factor and subtract the armor rating for that location, multiple the result by the weapon's impact factor which results in the final Damage Potential, divide the Damage Potential by the target's location Structure Points to get the damage ratio, cross reference the damage ratio on the Ballistic impact chart to determine the wound level and final effects.
In implementation terms, Example 2 is far more complex than Example 1. It has more steps, and those steps include more types of operations (multiplication and division as well as subtraction plus a table lookup). And of course we're talking about more than single digit whole numbers in the second example as well.
Games like Phoenix Command are representative of designs with high Implementation complexity, as are elements of other systems- such as GURPS Vehicles or Hero System Character design, systems that call for many to reach for a spreadsheet instead of pen and paper.
Some people love games with high Implementation Complexity. There are entire websites devoted to characters worked up in HERO while others spend days designing vehicles for their GURPS campaigns- much of this seems to be simply inspired by the joy of creating something and in the mastery of the method.
Yet another common draw for this type of complexity is found in the desire of some people to model in detail specific elements of a game. Not content with the typical high level of abstraction used in many games, they wish to see more detailed influences and a more detailed breakdown of events. Combat in Phoenix Command is a prime example of this type of thought. Here the desire for detailed objective simulation drives the need for complex mechanics.
Complexity of Mass
Rules may be simple to Implement in every case; however, there may be a large number of very specific cases, each with their own simple rules.
Example 1: The system defines all one-handed weapons as doing 1d8 points damage with a +1 strike and +1 initiative bonus.
Example 2: This system defines 50 different one-handed weapons each with their own specific damage (a 1d3 to 1d20 range) with strike and initiative bonuses independently ranging from +0 to +3.
Any game that defines large numbers of simple modifiers (say combat modifiers for position and environment and/or attack options) has increased its Complexity of Mass. Having large numbers of specific powers or spells has the same result- individually each are easy, but in total one is looking at a large number of rules, and for many that is overwhelming in itself.
Complexity of Mass is the easiest and quickest to judge; one can almost weigh the rulebook (however, be sure to leave out the setting information and other fluff). D&D is a good example of this type of complexity, as is Rolemaster with its dozens of charts, each of which uses a simple d100 + bonus mechanic.
Why would anyone want to deal with pages upon pages of rules? Two reasons come immediately to mind.
First, some people love options and different ways to approach things. How often does one hear something like "My last character was a Paladin, I think I'll run a Wizard this time..."? The best way to highlight options is to include them in the rules and this produces a simple relationship- more options mean more pages of rules. The very rules themselves become a reason to expand play. For example, include an extensive set of castle building mechanics and someone is going to play with them just to do something different.
A second reason is pride of mastery. It's difficult to master a lot of rules and even more difficult to keep them all at your fingertips. To some, knowing the rules and using them to achieve a desire outcome is a major source of satisfaction in gaming. The more rules to master and use, the greater the satisfaction.
These two reasons drive the design concepts of entire game lines like D20 and WoD, a fact easily determined by a passing examination of their splat books and other expansions. Indeed, this one element is so connected to D&D that the first reaction I typically see in reviews of high Mass games is to call them a D&D copy, even if mechanically they have little in common.
Complexity of Concept
There are games with few rules, those rules very simple, that are still viewed as complex in the extreme, with uncounted possibilities that take even the greatest of players years to master.
Think Chess.
Mechanically, it's simple to move a pawn. The entire rules for the game can be contained on a few sheets of paper. But which pawn to move? What will the effect be? Those are questions that are far from easy to answer, and the choice can be far from obvious. I refer to these games as Complex in Concept to represent the fact that the difficulty isn't in the "how does one do it," but rather in "what does one do and how much will it affect."
In one sense, all RPGs rate high in this area due to their open-ended nature. Even so, I tend to limit this to those games where the player is presented with a wide number of options under conditions that require a great deal of thought in order to find an optimal choice. Games with complex tactical environments like Heavy Gear top the list here.
Complexity of this type tends to draw players who value the importance of individual decisions in a challenging environment.
Just Plain Complex
Games can be complex in more than one way, and there is a tendency to rate high in others if you rate high in one.
Perhaps the ultimate example was SPI's game Air War, which pegged very high levels in all three measures. Over two hundred pages of small font rules concerned solely with jet era air combat, intricate mechanics to represent the fine details of aerial maneuver, dozens and dozens of aircraft with very specific stats and individual rules, and a very complex tactical environment where each choice could alter the entire course of the game.
While any RPG pales in comparison to that wargame, some examples include Hero System and Age of Heroes. A common combination is Mass and Concept, with the prime example being D&D with its volumes of rules and spell lists (Mass) combined with its detailed resource management (Concept).
Eye of the Beholder
Like everything, how complex a game is depends upon who is judging it. Every person has different levels of tolerance for each of the above elements. Below that tolerance, the game is easy - go above it and it becomes complex.
Additionally different people desire different mixes of complexity. One person may like a fairly high level of Mass and Concept and as low a level of Implementation as possible. Another may want a game that is the complete reverse. Games suitable for each are going to look vastly different from each other.
And of course, there are people who desire low levels of Complexity in all three elements. At their most extreme, games for such people become completely free form.
Knowing the complexity desires of your target players (and attempting to fulfill them) will greatly impact the choice of what games to play, or how to design your own. And hopefully knowing the core elements of what makes games complex will also make it easier to talk about them to others.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Looking back: Rationales for Mechanics
I'm still rather happy with the original article I reposted yesterday after 6 years. Not much to change or alter there.
One of its outstanding questions is what other possible Rationales are there? At the time I wrote it, I assumed that there would be others but I never had anyone put a suggestion fourth and I haven't came up with any either.
The classic reasons of 'realism' or 'simulation' are covered under V. Illusion.
About the only thing I can think of is a grab bag grouping of 'fun', covering such things as "I like to roll a bunch of dice...". That seems rather silly to someone (like say me) who designs for more defined goals, but I know designers and players who think in that exact way.
My reaction to it is that it's not a Rationale as such, but instead a preference. Something without a goal other than being, while the Rationales are ends toward which mechanics are a means.
So what do people think? Did I miss something important?
One of its outstanding questions is what other possible Rationales are there? At the time I wrote it, I assumed that there would be others but I never had anyone put a suggestion fourth and I haven't came up with any either.
The classic reasons of 'realism' or 'simulation' are covered under V. Illusion.
About the only thing I can think of is a grab bag grouping of 'fun', covering such things as "I like to roll a bunch of dice...". That seems rather silly to someone (like say me) who designs for more defined goals, but I know designers and players who think in that exact way.
My reaction to it is that it's not a Rationale as such, but instead a preference. Something without a goal other than being, while the Rationales are ends toward which mechanics are a means.
So what do people think? Did I miss something important?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Rationales for Mechanics
{or the case for designer notes}
revised from the 2203 article
Why do rpgs use mechanics? Such a simple question, but one with such complex answers. It seems obvious that those answers would be key in the design process or in the judging of an existing game. After all, it's only by knowing your needs that you can chart the nature and placement of mechanical systems properly in such a way that the game meets the desired goals.
Sadly it seems very common for rpg designers of the current day (especially in the free or small print world) to skip right by that question. It is painfully common for me to receive what is in effect a blank stare upon quizzing a game designer as to the reasons and rationales behind their design. Typically the only response is "I was looking for something different" and "It does what I wanted it to do", without being able to express what was different, or what it is doing. The end result is I receive in answer a jumble of words typically tossed on the back cover of a book as basic marketing ("Powerful yet simple mechanics!", "Yes it's a floor wax and a desert topping!").
With this as the common response, there is little reason to wonder that mechanics in many games seem almost pointless- seemly existing often just because other games have included them. The result is typically a distraction from (or misinterpretation of) the purpose of the game, reducing what could have been a powerful design to yet another rpg that will sit on the shelf.
Let's take a moment to consider some important and common rationales, just so we're on the same page. I don't think these are by any means the only reasons, but they are at the very least reasons every designer should consider his mechanics in the light of.
I. Limiting Player Options
If any single rationale could claim to hold prominence in game design, it would be this one. Why can't my 1st level Age of Heroes fighter kill an ancient red dragon with his penknife? Because the combat rules make that all but impossible as a core requirement of design.
The natural result of any mechanic is to limit options. What those options are limited to however determines the actual rationale for the mechanic. In this specific case, the reason is to prevent specific player actions and choices because they are unsuited to a intended purpose of the game- advancing and leveling characters to the point where one can defeat more epic opponents.
Advancement rules are typically guided by this rationale. The player gets X amount of power within the game for Y amount of effort, not no effort at all. Requiring a certain Strength level to break down a specific door is yet another example while falling damage is yet another (for those games limiting a character's ability to jump off 40 foot walls to reach a battle).
II. Providing Meaningful Player Choices
The classic example here is combat mechanics. The idea is to present a complex and diverse enough set of choices in order to make the decisions of the player important in determining the outcome of the game events.
III. Inspiring Player Action
Examples of these are the Sanity rules from Call of Cthulhu which provide a nudge of when and what type of insanity the player is struck with, but leave the exact details of expressing it up to the player and GM.
Psychological and Drama mechanics are normally created with this rationale in mind, to respectively inspire role-play and story creation.
IV. Replacing Player Choice
These mechanics are intended to flat out replace decisions by a player or GM.
Single roll combat resolutions are typically this type of mechanic, the idea is to remove any tactical choices beyond that of the decision to engage in battle (and sometimes even that isn't offered). Another example is the use of straight up 'social' skills like 'bribe' and the like. The concept is to remove choices and actions from extensive play that are felt to be either beyond the ability of the players or outside the focus of the game.
Another way of looking at these mechanics is as a simple and quick method to resolve something so that the game can go forward. Removing significant player input is perhaps the fasted way to achieve that goal.
V. Provide an Illusion
Some mechanics exist to aid in suspension of disbelief. Thus a game may include detailed currency rules because the players have a hard time believing that everyone in the world uses the same coins.
Some mechanics provide an illusion of Rationale II above. A typical example is providing a wide range of combat maneuvers that suggest a good selection- but upon using some math it's revealed that a single one of the provided maneuvers is always the best choice, or that the choice doesn't matter. Sometimes this is a result of failed design, at other times it's done on purpose (often using dice pools mechanics in order to make the illusion more difficult to pierce).
There are other possible reasons of course. I'm sure you can add a few with a little bit of thought.
Once one knows the rationale for a mechanic, it becomes much easier to determine the Layer of Design it applies to as well as its form. Rationale IV mechanics for example tend to be simpler than Rationale II systems by nature.
There's just one gotcha to keep in mind. A little thing called the 'the eye of the beholder'.
Remember Rationale III above, a little thing about inspiring player action? Most of the time I see such mechanics I'm not inspired. Instead I see a Rationale IV mechanic- something that takes my choices away in order to meet a goal of the game design (in the case of Call of Cthulhu, it's enforcing the genre concept that everyone goes insane- a type of railroading with respect to the role-playing of a PC).
Here's another example- Rationale II mechanics become little more than Rationale V mechanics if the players can't grasp the actual effects of choices in the system (dice pools tend to cause this effect by making probability determination exceedingly difficult).
Take a few mechanics from a favorite game of your own and try fitting them into each of the above rationales. With a little bit of work and a talent for seeing things though the eyes of others- you may be surprised how many rationales a single mechanic can fit in.
So in the end you may design a wonderful game, one that has developed mechanics that fit their reasons for use at every point. But in the end the final result may be viewed by others in a completely different light than what you intended.
But all is not lost. The solution to this sad state of affairs is right in the subtitle to this article.
Designer Notes.
Write them. Spend as much time and effort on them as you did in the design of your game- for they determined the design of your game. Put them directly in the book or on your website. Explain why you selected the mechanics you did, what they do in your game, why you rejected other possibilities.
You'll achieve four outcomes.
revised from the 2203 article
Why do rpgs use mechanics? Such a simple question, but one with such complex answers. It seems obvious that those answers would be key in the design process or in the judging of an existing game. After all, it's only by knowing your needs that you can chart the nature and placement of mechanical systems properly in such a way that the game meets the desired goals.
Sadly it seems very common for rpg designers of the current day (especially in the free or small print world) to skip right by that question. It is painfully common for me to receive what is in effect a blank stare upon quizzing a game designer as to the reasons and rationales behind their design. Typically the only response is "I was looking for something different" and "It does what I wanted it to do", without being able to express what was different, or what it is doing. The end result is I receive in answer a jumble of words typically tossed on the back cover of a book as basic marketing ("Powerful yet simple mechanics!", "Yes it's a floor wax and a desert topping!").
With this as the common response, there is little reason to wonder that mechanics in many games seem almost pointless- seemly existing often just because other games have included them. The result is typically a distraction from (or misinterpretation of) the purpose of the game, reducing what could have been a powerful design to yet another rpg that will sit on the shelf.
Let's take a moment to consider some important and common rationales, just so we're on the same page. I don't think these are by any means the only reasons, but they are at the very least reasons every designer should consider his mechanics in the light of.
I. Limiting Player Options
If any single rationale could claim to hold prominence in game design, it would be this one. Why can't my 1st level Age of Heroes fighter kill an ancient red dragon with his penknife? Because the combat rules make that all but impossible as a core requirement of design.
The natural result of any mechanic is to limit options. What those options are limited to however determines the actual rationale for the mechanic. In this specific case, the reason is to prevent specific player actions and choices because they are unsuited to a intended purpose of the game- advancing and leveling characters to the point where one can defeat more epic opponents.
Advancement rules are typically guided by this rationale. The player gets X amount of power within the game for Y amount of effort, not no effort at all. Requiring a certain Strength level to break down a specific door is yet another example while falling damage is yet another (for those games limiting a character's ability to jump off 40 foot walls to reach a battle).
II. Providing Meaningful Player Choices
The classic example here is combat mechanics. The idea is to present a complex and diverse enough set of choices in order to make the decisions of the player important in determining the outcome of the game events.
III. Inspiring Player Action
Examples of these are the Sanity rules from Call of Cthulhu which provide a nudge of when and what type of insanity the player is struck with, but leave the exact details of expressing it up to the player and GM.
Psychological and Drama mechanics are normally created with this rationale in mind, to respectively inspire role-play and story creation.
IV. Replacing Player Choice
These mechanics are intended to flat out replace decisions by a player or GM.
Single roll combat resolutions are typically this type of mechanic, the idea is to remove any tactical choices beyond that of the decision to engage in battle (and sometimes even that isn't offered). Another example is the use of straight up 'social' skills like 'bribe' and the like. The concept is to remove choices and actions from extensive play that are felt to be either beyond the ability of the players or outside the focus of the game.
Another way of looking at these mechanics is as a simple and quick method to resolve something so that the game can go forward. Removing significant player input is perhaps the fasted way to achieve that goal.
V. Provide an Illusion
Some mechanics exist to aid in suspension of disbelief. Thus a game may include detailed currency rules because the players have a hard time believing that everyone in the world uses the same coins.
Some mechanics provide an illusion of Rationale II above. A typical example is providing a wide range of combat maneuvers that suggest a good selection- but upon using some math it's revealed that a single one of the provided maneuvers is always the best choice, or that the choice doesn't matter. Sometimes this is a result of failed design, at other times it's done on purpose (often using dice pools mechanics in order to make the illusion more difficult to pierce).
There are other possible reasons of course. I'm sure you can add a few with a little bit of thought.
Once one knows the rationale for a mechanic, it becomes much easier to determine the Layer of Design it applies to as well as its form. Rationale IV mechanics for example tend to be simpler than Rationale II systems by nature.
There's just one gotcha to keep in mind. A little thing called the 'the eye of the beholder'.
Remember Rationale III above, a little thing about inspiring player action? Most of the time I see such mechanics I'm not inspired. Instead I see a Rationale IV mechanic- something that takes my choices away in order to meet a goal of the game design (in the case of Call of Cthulhu, it's enforcing the genre concept that everyone goes insane- a type of railroading with respect to the role-playing of a PC).
Here's another example- Rationale II mechanics become little more than Rationale V mechanics if the players can't grasp the actual effects of choices in the system (dice pools tend to cause this effect by making probability determination exceedingly difficult).
Take a few mechanics from a favorite game of your own and try fitting them into each of the above rationales. With a little bit of work and a talent for seeing things though the eyes of others- you may be surprised how many rationales a single mechanic can fit in.
So in the end you may design a wonderful game, one that has developed mechanics that fit their reasons for use at every point. But in the end the final result may be viewed by others in a completely different light than what you intended.
But all is not lost. The solution to this sad state of affairs is right in the subtitle to this article.
Designer Notes.
Write them. Spend as much time and effort on them as you did in the design of your game- for they determined the design of your game. Put them directly in the book or on your website. Explain why you selected the mechanics you did, what they do in your game, why you rejected other possibilities.
You'll achieve four outcomes.
- You'll produce a better game. One tailored to your needs and perfect for the type of play you desired.
- You'll provide the best guide there is to how the game was meant to be played. And you'll do it in a way far better than the typical stilted 'example of play' fiction.
- You'll define for the reader the terms on which your work is to be judged, so that in that judging they are not looking for a game you never designed. It is much better to hear "Even if I don't care for the style, Game X does what it intends almost perfectly" instead of "This games sucks".
- I won't get a blank stare when I ask you what makes your game different or what you were trying to achieve. For not only will you be able to answer that question, you've already written it for me meaning the only thing I'll bother you about is the details of your vision. And isn't the details of the designer's vision the reason for making a game in the first place?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tactics & Strategy in Game Design- Looking Back
Looking back, the original articles are Tactics and Strategy have held up rather well. I'm happier with this updated three-part series than I was the original two-part one. It flows better and I think stating the definitions I was using up front is an improvement.
While the concepts haven't changed in 6 years, the examples I used have to a degree. D&D 4E in particular made a number of significant design changes that I feel merits note.
Amoung these changes was reducing its Resource Management (gone are spell slots and from the designer statements there's a reduction in expendable magic support) and increasing its Maneuver through a number of movement and position related abilities. Additionally an attempt to make its Pace of Decision more constant across the levels of character advancement was made.
As the articles should make clear, such changes should seriously altered the play of the game. And the online reaction has reflected the reality of this. The move towards Maneuver has increased the importance of battlemaps and minis, something I consider an improvement but others online have reacted with dismay. The reduction of the game's Resource Management to 'at will', 'per encounter' and 'once per day' abilities also has received a mixed reaction.
One could spend quite a bit of time on these and other changes, something perhaps I'll take up in the future. But for now, I'll simple note them as examples of how exploring the concepts I presented here can be used to examine actual game designs.
Note that I've collected the T&S series into a collected article offsite. The link is to the right with the others.
While the concepts haven't changed in 6 years, the examples I used have to a degree. D&D 4E in particular made a number of significant design changes that I feel merits note.
Amoung these changes was reducing its Resource Management (gone are spell slots and from the designer statements there's a reduction in expendable magic support) and increasing its Maneuver through a number of movement and position related abilities. Additionally an attempt to make its Pace of Decision more constant across the levels of character advancement was made.
As the articles should make clear, such changes should seriously altered the play of the game. And the online reaction has reflected the reality of this. The move towards Maneuver has increased the importance of battlemaps and minis, something I consider an improvement but others online have reacted with dismay. The reduction of the game's Resource Management to 'at will', 'per encounter' and 'once per day' abilities also has received a mixed reaction.
One could spend quite a bit of time on these and other changes, something perhaps I'll take up in the future. But for now, I'll simple note them as examples of how exploring the concepts I presented here can be used to examine actual game designs.
Note that I've collected the T&S series into a collected article offsite. The link is to the right with the others.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tactics & Strategy in Game Design- Part III: Strategy
In part I we defined Tactics and Strategy, part II discussed key concepts of game design that resulted in tactical play. Now let’s turn our attention towards Strategy.
Strategic play takes place at the Near Game, Near Meta-Game or even the Meta-Game Layer of Design. Here the focus isn't directly on immediate concrete concerns, but rather on estimates of how one's opponent is going to move and react. Thus to repeat the phrase I used before- Strategy is not playing the board, but rather playing the man.
As we did before, let’s consider the primary elements of Strategy under this definition. Although they are greatly interrelated, almost like dance partners, they can be broken down as follows:
Prediction
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
This element covers predicting the decisions of your opponent and your own performance. Some examples: Knowing that Joe tends to put his most powerful units in the center or realizing that Sara loses effectiveness in chess if her queen is exchanged. Knowing that your heavy fighters can hold the line long enough to complete the flanking maneuver you have planned. Etc.
Deception
“Hence, when able to attack, you must seem unable, when using your tools, you must seem inactive. When we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away, when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
This element represents the flipside of Prediction, the ability to conceal your intentions and decisions from your opponent or even convince him that you are following a different course from your actual one. If he has positioned himself to protect from a strong center attack at the moment your Calvary hits him on the right flank- your chances for victory is enhanced.
Causality
"In war everything is simple, but it’s the simple things that are difficult.” General Carl Von Clausewitz.
This is the causal chain required to implement strategic decisions. If one decides to use your Calvary to flank your opponent on the left while tying down his main body with your infantry- the causal chain is all the steps (and time) needed to properly position your troops in order to reach that objective.
A very important characteristic of the causal chain is its length- how many actions are needed over how much time. If the chain is too short, strategic decision itself will become trivial as the other elements become irrelevant. As the chain lengthens the difficulty and importance of the strategic decision increases. Prediction must look further ahead into increasingly fuzzy ground while deception must be prolonged. Failure on either point can result in catastrophe.
As a result, the length of the causal chain is perhaps the most important of the elements of Strategy as it determines the impact of the others.
Given these definitions and moving from theory to more practical (if still abstract) concerns- what design concepts are important to consider in creating or evaluating a game's strategic environment?
Tactical Elements
A strong tactical game will by nature normally produce a strong strategic one.
Chess is again an excellent example of this case, as it needs nothing but its tactical design to present strategic challenges worthy of centuries of play. Between players of near equal tactical skill the causal chain is long and complex enough that essentially limitless Strategies become available and defeating your foe’s perception of the game is nearly as (if not more) important than mastering its reality.
So for strategic groundwork first look to the tactical elements: Resource Management, Dissimilar Assets, Maneuver and Pace of Decision. It will be these elements that define the causal chain and it will be these elements that frame the strategic environment.
A game design however can increase its strategic depth beyond that provide by its tactical environment in a number of ways. This can be used to make a moderately tactical game into something considerably more challenging- or turn an already demanding environment into any commander’s nightmare.
Rock-Scissors-Paper
Many game designs seek to employ both Prediction and Deception, but do so in a single step mechanic.
Examples include Top Secret were melee combatants would select an attack and defense stance that would thereafter be cross-referenced on a table to determine the result. Riddle of Steel would have opposing players drop a blue or red die simultaneously to declare that they focusing on attack or defense that round. Some LARPs actually use Rock-Scissors-Paper as their conflict resolution mechanic to determine the victor in one step.
All these are Strategic methods; however the causal chain is exceedingly short. Thus they are best used as part of a whole (as in the Riddle of Steel example) rather than the entire result. Even here, many such as myself find them so deep in the Meta-Game Layer that they directly drag your opposing player (rather than his character) into the conflict breaking character modeling and immersion.
Hidden Decisions
By hiding decisions made by a player from his opponent(s), the need to judge the intent of your foe and predict his actions is greatly increased. Resources that are to be used against you are not in sight. Where could they be? Where would your opponent likely place them?
Hidden Movement is perhaps the most common example of this method in wargames and even in RPGs although the latter seldom emphasizes the subject in the rules directly. D20 for example includes rules for sight range under specific lightning conditions without much comment. My own Age of Heroes takes line of sight limits for granted- a matter for GM judgment based upon the map.
Adding this to any system is easily done to great effect. Most often all it takes is using a battle map with terrain and line of sight rules.
Beyond the simple fact of hidden movement are active measures taken to hide (invisibility spells, smoke, etc.) or deceive (decoy troops carrying the banners of important units, riders trailing branches to raise dust, etc). All can be given to a player as a toolset to expand his strategic options.
Reconnaissance
If some attempt to hide things, others will always develop methods of investigation to reveal them.
Adding resources and methods to allow for such in a game adds yet another layer to the strategic environment, especially if by their use other resources are limited or spent. A classic example here are the divination spells from older versions of D&D. Information about one’s opponent can be had- at the price of losing a spell slot that could have been used for combat magic. Outside of magic, even the use of scouts in almost any system means that resources (which could have been of use in a main force) are diverted to a recon and/or harassment role.
Like the three elements of strategy above, Hidden Decisions and Reconnaissance are each part of a dance- play benefiting from both having their impact. When balanced to a fine degree, one may well discover part of a foe’s casual chain and thus act to interrupt it- but interpreting scattered clues to determine the correct causal chain should be left in large part to the Prediction skills of the player instead of being given as simply stated fact. Otherwise you risk reducing Strategic play inside of enchancing it.
"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak. Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing." Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
One of the easiest end of day tests for good Strategic game design is to see if the classic wisdoms of war apply to the end results. The quotes from Sun Tzu and Clausewitz above for example. If characters in your game can make use of such concepts, you’ve at least got a good start. If they can’t gain victory without constantly using such concepts, you’ve achieved it.
Note: the above is an edited and updated version of this 2003 article.
Strategic play takes place at the Near Game, Near Meta-Game or even the Meta-Game Layer of Design. Here the focus isn't directly on immediate concrete concerns, but rather on estimates of how one's opponent is going to move and react. Thus to repeat the phrase I used before- Strategy is not playing the board, but rather playing the man.
As we did before, let’s consider the primary elements of Strategy under this definition. Although they are greatly interrelated, almost like dance partners, they can be broken down as follows:
Prediction
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
This element covers predicting the decisions of your opponent and your own performance. Some examples: Knowing that Joe tends to put his most powerful units in the center or realizing that Sara loses effectiveness in chess if her queen is exchanged. Knowing that your heavy fighters can hold the line long enough to complete the flanking maneuver you have planned. Etc.
Deception
“Hence, when able to attack, you must seem unable, when using your tools, you must seem inactive. When we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away, when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
This element represents the flipside of Prediction, the ability to conceal your intentions and decisions from your opponent or even convince him that you are following a different course from your actual one. If he has positioned himself to protect from a strong center attack at the moment your Calvary hits him on the right flank- your chances for victory is enhanced.
Causality
"In war everything is simple, but it’s the simple things that are difficult.” General Carl Von Clausewitz.
This is the causal chain required to implement strategic decisions. If one decides to use your Calvary to flank your opponent on the left while tying down his main body with your infantry- the causal chain is all the steps (and time) needed to properly position your troops in order to reach that objective.
A very important characteristic of the causal chain is its length- how many actions are needed over how much time. If the chain is too short, strategic decision itself will become trivial as the other elements become irrelevant. As the chain lengthens the difficulty and importance of the strategic decision increases. Prediction must look further ahead into increasingly fuzzy ground while deception must be prolonged. Failure on either point can result in catastrophe.
As a result, the length of the causal chain is perhaps the most important of the elements of Strategy as it determines the impact of the others.
Given these definitions and moving from theory to more practical (if still abstract) concerns- what design concepts are important to consider in creating or evaluating a game's strategic environment?
Tactical Elements
A strong tactical game will by nature normally produce a strong strategic one.
Chess is again an excellent example of this case, as it needs nothing but its tactical design to present strategic challenges worthy of centuries of play. Between players of near equal tactical skill the causal chain is long and complex enough that essentially limitless Strategies become available and defeating your foe’s perception of the game is nearly as (if not more) important than mastering its reality.
So for strategic groundwork first look to the tactical elements: Resource Management, Dissimilar Assets, Maneuver and Pace of Decision. It will be these elements that define the causal chain and it will be these elements that frame the strategic environment.
A game design however can increase its strategic depth beyond that provide by its tactical environment in a number of ways. This can be used to make a moderately tactical game into something considerably more challenging- or turn an already demanding environment into any commander’s nightmare.
Rock-Scissors-Paper
Many game designs seek to employ both Prediction and Deception, but do so in a single step mechanic.
Examples include Top Secret were melee combatants would select an attack and defense stance that would thereafter be cross-referenced on a table to determine the result. Riddle of Steel would have opposing players drop a blue or red die simultaneously to declare that they focusing on attack or defense that round. Some LARPs actually use Rock-Scissors-Paper as their conflict resolution mechanic to determine the victor in one step.
All these are Strategic methods; however the causal chain is exceedingly short. Thus they are best used as part of a whole (as in the Riddle of Steel example) rather than the entire result. Even here, many such as myself find them so deep in the Meta-Game Layer that they directly drag your opposing player (rather than his character) into the conflict breaking character modeling and immersion.
Hidden Decisions
By hiding decisions made by a player from his opponent(s), the need to judge the intent of your foe and predict his actions is greatly increased. Resources that are to be used against you are not in sight. Where could they be? Where would your opponent likely place them?
Hidden Movement is perhaps the most common example of this method in wargames and even in RPGs although the latter seldom emphasizes the subject in the rules directly. D20 for example includes rules for sight range under specific lightning conditions without much comment. My own Age of Heroes takes line of sight limits for granted- a matter for GM judgment based upon the map.
Adding this to any system is easily done to great effect. Most often all it takes is using a battle map with terrain and line of sight rules.
Beyond the simple fact of hidden movement are active measures taken to hide (invisibility spells, smoke, etc.) or deceive (decoy troops carrying the banners of important units, riders trailing branches to raise dust, etc). All can be given to a player as a toolset to expand his strategic options.
Reconnaissance
If some attempt to hide things, others will always develop methods of investigation to reveal them.
Adding resources and methods to allow for such in a game adds yet another layer to the strategic environment, especially if by their use other resources are limited or spent. A classic example here are the divination spells from older versions of D&D. Information about one’s opponent can be had- at the price of losing a spell slot that could have been used for combat magic. Outside of magic, even the use of scouts in almost any system means that resources (which could have been of use in a main force) are diverted to a recon and/or harassment role.
Like the three elements of strategy above, Hidden Decisions and Reconnaissance are each part of a dance- play benefiting from both having their impact. When balanced to a fine degree, one may well discover part of a foe’s casual chain and thus act to interrupt it- but interpreting scattered clues to determine the correct causal chain should be left in large part to the Prediction skills of the player instead of being given as simply stated fact. Otherwise you risk reducing Strategic play inside of enchancing it.
"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak. Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing." Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
One of the easiest end of day tests for good Strategic game design is to see if the classic wisdoms of war apply to the end results. The quotes from Sun Tzu and Clausewitz above for example. If characters in your game can make use of such concepts, you’ve at least got a good start. If they can’t gain victory without constantly using such concepts, you’ve achieved it.
Note: the above is an edited and updated version of this 2003 article.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Tactics & Strategy in Game Design- Part II: Tactics
Now that we’ve defined the differences between Tactics and Strategy, how does a game’s design enhance such play? We’ll start with Tactical game play, which at its simplest has three major elements.
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. And being able to do anything hardly makes for good tactical play, instead of working towards of a goal with clever play- you just do it.
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.
Earlier D&D editions have 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. Even in 4th edition, once-a-day and once-an-encounter abilities represent resource management although at a weaker level.
As a general rule, increasing the number and types of resources you have to manage increases the tactical play of the game.
Element 2: Dissimilar Assets
To study tactical battle one must study combine arms (the concept, not the modern military use although that’s fun as well). 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 package- but 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 and thus Combine Arms 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 from within its own group of players.
Other games however consider such stark limits as unrealistic and seek to reduce all the characters to common terms.
As a system weakens character niche, it reduces tactical play. Universal Resolution systems, lack of character differences, sole dominating weapon selections, all these things 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 plan that 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.
A design that focuses on tactical movement will 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.
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 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 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, the combination of the elements above that work best 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.
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 bringing 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.
Note: the above is an edited and slightly updated version of this 2002 article.
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. And being able to do anything hardly makes for good tactical play, instead of working towards of a goal with clever play- you just do it.
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.
Earlier D&D editions have 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. Even in 4th edition, once-a-day and once-an-encounter abilities represent resource management although at a weaker level.
As a general rule, increasing the number and types of resources you have to manage increases the tactical play of the game.
Element 2: Dissimilar Assets
To study tactical battle one must study combine arms (the concept, not the modern military use although that’s fun as well). 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 package- but 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 and thus Combine Arms 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 from within its own group of players.
Other games however consider such stark limits as unrealistic and seek to reduce all the characters to common terms.
As a system weakens character niche, it reduces tactical play. Universal Resolution systems, lack of character differences, sole dominating weapon selections, all these things 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 plan that 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.
A design that focuses on tactical movement will 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.
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 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 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, the combination of the elements above that work best 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.
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 bringing 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.
Note: the above is an edited and slightly updated version of this 2002 article.
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.
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
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
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
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Better Side of RPG Theory- Part VI: Elements of Design
I was original going to skip on covering these for rather obvious reasons. But decided that since I'll be doing a 'Time Line of RPG Theory Post', I may as well include them.
From the last part of 2002 until early 2003, I wrote a column for RPGnet entitled Elements of Gaming.
This was something of a break with the previous models in that it wasn't concerned with defining player types and goals. Rather it was about rpg games themselves, how one could examine them or what should be considered when designing them.
Although well received by some, they made little impact at the time. They didn't lend themselves to that major driver for online fame- flame wars. Further they were of course created from the PoV of tactical rpgs, and that seems to be a minority taste online.
Despite this I do see occasional positive comments on them, and have received requests to publish more in that line. And so we have this Blog, and that's exactly the purpose I'll be putting it to. In the coming weeks I'll be republishing (and updating when need) the original articles and of course adding more. In addition I'll examine specific mechanics in various games, and even game lines with respect to design.
The above link (or link to the right that points to my own archive of those articles as well) can serve as hint of what's to come here. Likely boring, and not that well connected to the current state of the hobby. But that's because I think the current state of the hobby is less than ideal.
From the last part of 2002 until early 2003, I wrote a column for RPGnet entitled Elements of Gaming.
This was something of a break with the previous models in that it wasn't concerned with defining player types and goals. Rather it was about rpg games themselves, how one could examine them or what should be considered when designing them.
Although well received by some, they made little impact at the time. They didn't lend themselves to that major driver for online fame- flame wars. Further they were of course created from the PoV of tactical rpgs, and that seems to be a minority taste online.
Despite this I do see occasional positive comments on them, and have received requests to publish more in that line. And so we have this Blog, and that's exactly the purpose I'll be putting it to. In the coming weeks I'll be republishing (and updating when need) the original articles and of course adding more. In addition I'll examine specific mechanics in various games, and even game lines with respect to design.
The above link (or link to the right that points to my own archive of those articles as well) can serve as hint of what's to come here. Likely boring, and not that well connected to the current state of the hobby. But that's because I think the current state of the hobby is less than ideal.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Looking Back
Below I posted an article of mine from RPGNet from 2002. I reposted it for two reasons, one to give what is in effect my 'top level view' of rpg design on this blog. The second reason is to look it over and how it seems to apply to rpgs today.
Naturally (not lacking in ego) I feel it remains sound and rather intact. RPGs haven't despite the efforts of some changed to any extent that would cause a revision of the article (although I did correct a couple of typos as I was copying it over). Another thing that hasn't changed is the fact that many don't understand the concepts covered in the article. Stated as it's most simple, this can be expressed as: The sum total experience of a rpg campaign is driven by a large number of factors much of which exist outside the rules.
Yet today there are many who feel that unless something is hardcoded in the Game Layer (or *maybe* the Near Game), it doesn't exist at all. From the old cries of 'roleplay not rollplay' to today's critics of D&D 4E (who say the detailed combat system prevents roleplay), to http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ and its depressing theory of GNS, this mindset remains a bedrock of the rpg hobby.
Pity. Games are worse for it, and players poorer.
Each Layer of a game design can and should of course be judged on it's own. One may for example examine combat rules and determine that they are too complex for one's own use or taste. One may even find rule loopholes and failures. That's fine and fair. One cannot however say that it isn't roleplaying. To do so is ignoring the most important Layers- those the players and the GM exist at, for it is there that any RPG campaign is given form and brought to life.
Naturally (not lacking in ego) I feel it remains sound and rather intact. RPGs haven't despite the efforts of some changed to any extent that would cause a revision of the article (although I did correct a couple of typos as I was copying it over). Another thing that hasn't changed is the fact that many don't understand the concepts covered in the article. Stated as it's most simple, this can be expressed as: The sum total experience of a rpg campaign is driven by a large number of factors much of which exist outside the rules.
Yet today there are many who feel that unless something is hardcoded in the Game Layer (or *maybe* the Near Game), it doesn't exist at all. From the old cries of 'roleplay not rollplay' to today's critics of D&D 4E (who say the detailed combat system prevents roleplay), to http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ and its depressing theory of GNS, this mindset remains a bedrock of the rpg hobby.
Pity. Games are worse for it, and players poorer.
Each Layer of a game design can and should of course be judged on it's own. One may for example examine combat rules and determine that they are too complex for one's own use or taste. One may even find rule loopholes and failures. That's fine and fair. One cannot however say that it isn't roleplaying. To do so is ignoring the most important Layers- those the players and the GM exist at, for it is there that any RPG campaign is given form and brought to life.
Elements: Layers of Design
Orignally Published on RPGNet Dec 2002, edited and updated.
What do people think of when they think of game design? Generally things like character generation, resolution mechanics, combat rules, etc. Sadly this common view often causes people to miss most of the game as it is actually played. This in turn results in either poor design that fails to achieve its goals, or in poor evaluation of existing games (which causes endless flamewars).
In the simplest terms, an rpg campaign consists of two very different influences- the Game itself and the Meta-Game. These terms are generally understood by most gamers and are a useful short hand. That split however covers too much ground for my taste and I’ve identified five layers (one in Game, and four in the Meta-Game) that differ significantly enough from each other that a solid treatment of the subject must give each their due.
Any game operates within (and is in effect designed for) these five layers. Let’s consider each of them in turn:
GameThis layer is made up completely of the actual rules, i.e. the game’s mechanics. These rules must be objective and visible.
By objective, we mean that the mechanics would be resolved the same way and produce the same outcomes (assuming equal rolls, card picks, etc) no matter who the players are (assuming they are of course following the rules). For example, in HERO it takes a roll of 11 or less on 3d6 to succeed with an unadjusted 11- skill. Thus a die roll of 10 will be a success for any player in any group no matter the opinions and thoughts thereof.
By visible we mean that all data, resolutions and decisions in respect to the mechanics are visible to all players at all times.
It is very important to realize that this level’s primary purpose is to define LIMITS on the available actions and results. In chess rooks can move vertically and horizontality but never diagonally. A broadsword does a specified amount of damage- no more, no less in D20. Etc. It is by forcing limits that the mechanics assure objectivity, visibility and provide a framework for play.
Game play at this level is based upon known certainties. Examples: “The orcs have massed their greatest fighters in the center, we should…” or “I have a 68% chance of taking down the goblin, but only a 33% chance on the bigger hobgoblin. We’re outnumbered right now and that’s gives heavy modifiers against us so I’ll…”
In general tactical game design exists at this layer.
Near GameThis layer consists of any hidden mechanics.
This includes but is not limited to such things as pre-plotted movement (seldom used in RPGs, one example slightly modified is The Burning Wheel), various rock-scissors-paper resolutions systems (hand-to-hand combat in Top Secret, RSP itself in many LARPs, etc), hidden movement (defined by Line of Site rules for the most part, D&D 3rd edition for example defines the range limits of sight under various conditions), hidden damage, and simultaneous assignment (such as the drop of the initiative die in The Riddle of Steel).
The effect of this layer is to move decisions away from the visible certainties above to one of predicting the decisions of other players or guessing what information that they are hiding. Examples: “Tom tends to mass his power in the center but he likes the cover forests give as well. Let’s deploy here so as to be within range of both and send scouts in those two directions” or “I’ll buff with this hand, Bill can never tell when I’m buffing”.
It should be noted that this layer remains objective and as such contains many of the characteristics of the Game layer. But it has moved into the Meta-Game to a large extent as the focus switches from visible characters and their abilities (stats, locations, resources) to players and their abilities (to guess and deceive).
In general, strategic game design exists at this level.
Near Meta-Game
This layer consists of any subjective or invisible mechanics.
Subjective Mechanics are those that rely upon the interpretation of the GM (or a player) to determine the final effect. D&D alignment is the classic example of such a subjective mechanic, the GM is required to determine when and if a character violates his Alignment and the player is required to role-playing with its goals and limits in mind. Another example is fumble mechanics where the actual effect is left up to the GM.
Another way of looking at these mechanics is to view them as ‘guiding mechanics’ or ‘advisory mechanics’. They may point in a direction, but how far you go and sometimes even if you make the trip at all is squarely a heavily subjective decision of the GM/Player.
A number of systems even toss combat modifiers that they normally reserve for the Game Layer here. In HERO System for example the GM is advised to give a bonus (+1 to +3) for creative and/or unexpected types of attacks. In Age of Heroes, I leave specific terrain modifiers up to the GM after providing a few examples.
Meta-GameThis layer consists of pure subjective resolution/methods, ‘group contracts’, and role-playing itself.
Subjective resolution is free form or mechanic-less play. The classic example is a GM or player just calling the outcome of an action: “I think your character is more than able to track down the guy by using legwork, you find him that evening at 8 PM”.
However subjective methods covers more ground then first comes to mind including the ‘world’ and adventure design essential to RPGs. If the GM has decided (without resort to mechanics) that the mob boss has three bodyguards, each highly skilled- he has engaged in the pure subjective resolution of a question.
Huge sections of most games are turned over to Subjective Resolution/Methods. One of the interesting aspects of that is that by nature you can’t design rules for it, each person does that himself according to his own needs and desires. At best one can provide advice. Thus in game design terms, this method is defined not by rules enforcing limits, but by the absence of rules preventing subjective decision-making. It is worth remembering that not including rules is as a result game design as well.
Group Contracts are those agreements made by members of a group to either engage (“we want to do a lot of hack and slash”, “Let’s try to keep the game focused on court intrigue”, “players should create characters that work with others”) or refuse (“we don’t want evil characters”, “no rape will occur in this campaign) events, ideas or storylines. Such group contracts are often informal although there are exceptions, and they tend to be added on top of the game outside the control or influence of the designer.
Role-playing itself is typically done at this layer with the players determining the personality, actions and reactions completely on their own without input from mechanical rules.
The main characteristic of this layer is that it’s subjective. It is also limited only the constraints accepted by the players themselves. Since it’s contained mostly within the minds of the players, it is also in large part hidden with uncertain influences or outcomes.
Far Meta-GameThese are influences unrelated to the game itself, but even so they still carry great impact. There is almost no way to define all the possible examples for the extent of their reach. Common ones are “GM’s girlfriend syndrome’ or ‘Sherri worked late and is off her game, let’s be easy on her’.
There is however one point in this layer where game design does matter: the decision to play the game at all. Here we get game design that attempts to make entry easy and attractive either by way of light and simple rules, by seductive settings, or ‘new’ concepts. These days we see lots of effort to design at this layer in an attempt to expand or open up new markets, often at the cost of other Layers.
Designing by LayersOne of the first things a designer should do is decide which parts of the game are to be handled by which Layer and for what reasons.
This will in large measure determine the character of the game and the campaigns that result from it. Those things contained at the Game layer will be highly defined and limited. Those at the Near Game will defined and limited, but unknown to some in the short term. Those at the Near Meta-Game will be guided, but not specifically controlled. The Meta-Game level itself is its own lord and master. The Far Meta-Game may cause the design to forgone certain mechanics as ‘too complex for his market’ or otherwise unacceptable.
For example, I designed Age of Heroes to handle character creation, advancement, combat, etc at the Game Layer. A few elements that look like Game Layer (like the Personal Appearance Stat) are really covered in the Near Meta-Game. I assigned a large number of areas (all the world design, storyline, and role-playing) to the Near Meta-Game. I gave no attention to the Far Meta-Game not really caring why people chose to play.
An important concept to keep in mind is the fact that it’s quite possible to move elements I lumped into specific layers above to another. A number of games for example move some parts of role-playing from its normal Meta-Game subjective method to a subjective mechanic in the Near Meta-Game. (D&D’s alignment) or even to the Game Layer (CoC’s Sanity at certain points).
It is possible also for one Layer to call for crossing over to another. An example of crossing Layers is those systems that determine at the Game Layer which player has control (and sometimes for what ends) in the Meta-Game.
Since such ‘crossing’ of layers is typically defined in one and resolved in another, I’ve coined the time “Calling to the X Layer” (such as Calling to the Meta-Game) for this type of design. It’s an increasing common method that many are finding exciting.
Judging a Design by LayersAnyone attempting to judge the usefulness of a game system can benefit by considering five layers if they are interesting in not greatly misrepresenting other people’s campaigns and tastes.
For example, it’s easy to say that D20 or Age of Heroes are purely hack and slash designs given that most of the rules cover combat and near combat events. They have forgotten the importance of the Meta-Game level and the fact that both games are specifically designed to use it for certain parts of the campaign. It’s entirely possible for a group to spend five gaming nights in pure role-playing without a single die being toss, and then engage in a single evening’s combat. To characterized such a campaign as hack and slash would be a grave error- and a defining statement of the limits of looking at a single Layer.
Knowing the Layers and your own tastes in them can be helpful anytime you’re thinking of trying out a new game system. It will quickly point you towards things not to your taste and allow you to house rule it away from the start or to turn your attention elsewhere.
What do people think of when they think of game design? Generally things like character generation, resolution mechanics, combat rules, etc. Sadly this common view often causes people to miss most of the game as it is actually played. This in turn results in either poor design that fails to achieve its goals, or in poor evaluation of existing games (which causes endless flamewars).
In the simplest terms, an rpg campaign consists of two very different influences- the Game itself and the Meta-Game. These terms are generally understood by most gamers and are a useful short hand. That split however covers too much ground for my taste and I’ve identified five layers (one in Game, and four in the Meta-Game) that differ significantly enough from each other that a solid treatment of the subject must give each their due.
Any game operates within (and is in effect designed for) these five layers. Let’s consider each of them in turn:
GameThis layer is made up completely of the actual rules, i.e. the game’s mechanics. These rules must be objective and visible.
By objective, we mean that the mechanics would be resolved the same way and produce the same outcomes (assuming equal rolls, card picks, etc) no matter who the players are (assuming they are of course following the rules). For example, in HERO it takes a roll of 11 or less on 3d6 to succeed with an unadjusted 11- skill. Thus a die roll of 10 will be a success for any player in any group no matter the opinions and thoughts thereof.
By visible we mean that all data, resolutions and decisions in respect to the mechanics are visible to all players at all times.
It is very important to realize that this level’s primary purpose is to define LIMITS on the available actions and results. In chess rooks can move vertically and horizontality but never diagonally. A broadsword does a specified amount of damage- no more, no less in D20. Etc. It is by forcing limits that the mechanics assure objectivity, visibility and provide a framework for play.
Game play at this level is based upon known certainties. Examples: “The orcs have massed their greatest fighters in the center, we should…” or “I have a 68% chance of taking down the goblin, but only a 33% chance on the bigger hobgoblin. We’re outnumbered right now and that’s gives heavy modifiers against us so I’ll…”
In general tactical game design exists at this layer.
Near GameThis layer consists of any hidden mechanics.
This includes but is not limited to such things as pre-plotted movement (seldom used in RPGs, one example slightly modified is The Burning Wheel), various rock-scissors-paper resolutions systems (hand-to-hand combat in Top Secret, RSP itself in many LARPs, etc), hidden movement (defined by Line of Site rules for the most part, D&D 3rd edition for example defines the range limits of sight under various conditions), hidden damage, and simultaneous assignment (such as the drop of the initiative die in The Riddle of Steel).
The effect of this layer is to move decisions away from the visible certainties above to one of predicting the decisions of other players or guessing what information that they are hiding. Examples: “Tom tends to mass his power in the center but he likes the cover forests give as well. Let’s deploy here so as to be within range of both and send scouts in those two directions” or “I’ll buff with this hand, Bill can never tell when I’m buffing”.
It should be noted that this layer remains objective and as such contains many of the characteristics of the Game layer. But it has moved into the Meta-Game to a large extent as the focus switches from visible characters and their abilities (stats, locations, resources) to players and their abilities (to guess and deceive).
In general, strategic game design exists at this level.
Near Meta-Game
This layer consists of any subjective or invisible mechanics.
Subjective Mechanics are those that rely upon the interpretation of the GM (or a player) to determine the final effect. D&D alignment is the classic example of such a subjective mechanic, the GM is required to determine when and if a character violates his Alignment and the player is required to role-playing with its goals and limits in mind. Another example is fumble mechanics where the actual effect is left up to the GM.
Another way of looking at these mechanics is to view them as ‘guiding mechanics’ or ‘advisory mechanics’. They may point in a direction, but how far you go and sometimes even if you make the trip at all is squarely a heavily subjective decision of the GM/Player.
A number of systems even toss combat modifiers that they normally reserve for the Game Layer here. In HERO System for example the GM is advised to give a bonus (+1 to +3) for creative and/or unexpected types of attacks. In Age of Heroes, I leave specific terrain modifiers up to the GM after providing a few examples.
Meta-GameThis layer consists of pure subjective resolution/methods, ‘group contracts’, and role-playing itself.
Subjective resolution is free form or mechanic-less play. The classic example is a GM or player just calling the outcome of an action: “I think your character is more than able to track down the guy by using legwork, you find him that evening at 8 PM”.
However subjective methods covers more ground then first comes to mind including the ‘world’ and adventure design essential to RPGs. If the GM has decided (without resort to mechanics) that the mob boss has three bodyguards, each highly skilled- he has engaged in the pure subjective resolution of a question.
Huge sections of most games are turned over to Subjective Resolution/Methods. One of the interesting aspects of that is that by nature you can’t design rules for it, each person does that himself according to his own needs and desires. At best one can provide advice. Thus in game design terms, this method is defined not by rules enforcing limits, but by the absence of rules preventing subjective decision-making. It is worth remembering that not including rules is as a result game design as well.
Group Contracts are those agreements made by members of a group to either engage (“we want to do a lot of hack and slash”, “Let’s try to keep the game focused on court intrigue”, “players should create characters that work with others”) or refuse (“we don’t want evil characters”, “no rape will occur in this campaign) events, ideas or storylines. Such group contracts are often informal although there are exceptions, and they tend to be added on top of the game outside the control or influence of the designer.
Role-playing itself is typically done at this layer with the players determining the personality, actions and reactions completely on their own without input from mechanical rules.
The main characteristic of this layer is that it’s subjective. It is also limited only the constraints accepted by the players themselves. Since it’s contained mostly within the minds of the players, it is also in large part hidden with uncertain influences or outcomes.
Far Meta-GameThese are influences unrelated to the game itself, but even so they still carry great impact. There is almost no way to define all the possible examples for the extent of their reach. Common ones are “GM’s girlfriend syndrome’ or ‘Sherri worked late and is off her game, let’s be easy on her’.
There is however one point in this layer where game design does matter: the decision to play the game at all. Here we get game design that attempts to make entry easy and attractive either by way of light and simple rules, by seductive settings, or ‘new’ concepts. These days we see lots of effort to design at this layer in an attempt to expand or open up new markets, often at the cost of other Layers.
Designing by LayersOne of the first things a designer should do is decide which parts of the game are to be handled by which Layer and for what reasons.
This will in large measure determine the character of the game and the campaigns that result from it. Those things contained at the Game layer will be highly defined and limited. Those at the Near Game will defined and limited, but unknown to some in the short term. Those at the Near Meta-Game will be guided, but not specifically controlled. The Meta-Game level itself is its own lord and master. The Far Meta-Game may cause the design to forgone certain mechanics as ‘too complex for his market’ or otherwise unacceptable.
For example, I designed Age of Heroes to handle character creation, advancement, combat, etc at the Game Layer. A few elements that look like Game Layer (like the Personal Appearance Stat) are really covered in the Near Meta-Game. I assigned a large number of areas (all the world design, storyline, and role-playing) to the Near Meta-Game. I gave no attention to the Far Meta-Game not really caring why people chose to play.
An important concept to keep in mind is the fact that it’s quite possible to move elements I lumped into specific layers above to another. A number of games for example move some parts of role-playing from its normal Meta-Game subjective method to a subjective mechanic in the Near Meta-Game. (D&D’s alignment) or even to the Game Layer (CoC’s Sanity at certain points).
It is possible also for one Layer to call for crossing over to another. An example of crossing Layers is those systems that determine at the Game Layer which player has control (and sometimes for what ends) in the Meta-Game.
Since such ‘crossing’ of layers is typically defined in one and resolved in another, I’ve coined the time “Calling to the X Layer” (such as Calling to the Meta-Game) for this type of design. It’s an increasing common method that many are finding exciting.
Judging a Design by LayersAnyone attempting to judge the usefulness of a game system can benefit by considering five layers if they are interesting in not greatly misrepresenting other people’s campaigns and tastes.
For example, it’s easy to say that D20 or Age of Heroes are purely hack and slash designs given that most of the rules cover combat and near combat events. They have forgotten the importance of the Meta-Game level and the fact that both games are specifically designed to use it for certain parts of the campaign. It’s entirely possible for a group to spend five gaming nights in pure role-playing without a single die being toss, and then engage in a single evening’s combat. To characterized such a campaign as hack and slash would be a grave error- and a defining statement of the limits of looking at a single Layer.
Knowing the Layers and your own tastes in them can be helpful anytime you’re thinking of trying out a new game system. It will quickly point you towards things not to your taste and allow you to house rule it away from the start or to turn your attention elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
