gleichman
2006-10-18 16:27:05 UTC
This is bashed together from a number of posts I made on another forum.
I'm putting it here because Peter mentioned the concept, and what the
heck. Doug said post, so I'm posting.
I make edit it futher and add it to my other 'Elements' articles...
__________________________________
I nearly always consider Pace of Decision first when examining a game
or designing one for it is what is most likely to be directly in the
face of the player (if he recognizes it or not).
For one-on-one combat, there are three important points:
1. What is the Minimum length a battle can be
2. What is the Average length of a battle.
3. What is Standard Deviation of that average length.
These should be answered for equal opponents and it should be measured
in rounds, which in turn consider at their core *one* set of decisions
by the player. Most games define their 'round' in some detail so that
part is easy.
In the case of games like D&D, the answers vary greatly depending upon
the 'level' of the character in question, their gear and the like. So
you may have to determine the value for a number of what you consider
'break' points in character advancement.
The third value is nice to have, but I've never actually calculated it
and have gone with the playtest 'feel'.
Thus Pace of Decision determines risk and the number of choices the
character needs to make. At it's simplest, it's how long a battle
lasts.
A low Minimum and low Average means you have a high Pace of Decision
game while of course higher numbers lower the Pace. Standard Deviation
determines how random it is.
Once you know the Pace, you can look over the *significant* options
provided in the game be they Manuever, Resource Management or
Dissimilar Assets usage (see
http://home.comcast.net/~b.gleichman/Theory/elements/Tactics.htm). The
combination of these determine the tactical complexity.
How hard or easy a job it is to determine the three points for Pact of
Decision is completely dependent upon the system. It comes down to
math. Case in point, dice pools require far more work than most other
systems. You'd have to tailor your approach individually to each set of
mechanics.
For an example, let's walk through a simple example of a D&D like
combat system. To keep it easy, no crit rules, single attack per round.
Nothing fancy.
You pick what you think is a typical combat example, or milestone of
your choice in character progresson. You pair off identical opponents
and start running the numbers.
So in our simplified D&D like system, let's take a pair of combatants
who each have 40 HP and with typical weapons and armor need a 11+ to
hit each other on a D20 doing 1d8+2 weapon damage. In this type of
system, it's basically all Damage per Round numbers.
1. What is the Minimum length:
This would be the case where an attacker rolls successful hits with max
damage each round. With 1d8+2, that means 10 points per round or 4
rounds.
2. What is the Average length
This takes only a little more work in our simple example. The average
roll for 1d8+2 is 6.5 and the attacks only hit half the time. Since the
target has 40 hit points, it would take 40/6.5*2 or 13 rounds (round
up) to resolve the battle on average.
3. What is Standard Deviation
The last step is to determine how randomly the results vary from the
average. Here the math gets much more serious. However it can be
avoided if you have programming skills by modeling the battle in code
and running it several thousand times, then running a Standard
Deviation on the results.
I hope you don't mind if I skip that for this example . Instead I'll
just say that given the number of what is in effect cumulative die
rolls required (on average 6-7 damage rolls) the SD is going to be on
the low side.
So our example system is slow pace with its Minimum of 4, Average of 13
and low Standard Deviation.
A real system is more complex.
D20 for example has crits (easy to deal with as they only increase
damage), increasing HP per level, increasing number of attacks per
level, expected gear per level, etc.
If the effects of increasing level are very significant, you'll want to
do this analysis at a number of different points until you get a feel
for how it changes with advancement. This is very much the case in D&D,
but non-existent in something like Age of Heroes.
The last step is to examine the system for things that alter the Pace
of Decision. In D&D magical healing slows it while many offensive
spells reduce it. These are generally too great in number to do actual
calculations on in mass, but are easy to examine one at a time.
The idea is to look for a baseline, and then examine how the system
varies around that.
Pace of Decision directly effects the game's style of play. One man's
benefit is another's drawback, but leaving that aside there are
characteristics that are important to bear in mind. Let's look over
some examples.
Low Pace: Example Min 4, Average 13, SD low
Classic D&D falls in here.
In this style of game one generally has a lot of time to respond to
events. "Joe's in trouble! If we don't get to him in 3 rounds he's a
goner!"
Generally Manuever doesn't work well in this type of game as the
opponent has time to correct any mistakes.
Resource Management on the other hand can have huge impact, Especially
if by its use a player can significant lower the Pace for a period.
Battles are typical won and lost on this single element.
High Pace: Example Min 1, Average 4, SD low
Age of Heroes falls in this lonely group
Here one may find that time is not on their side, and find that out
quickly. "Joe's in trouble! Opps, Joe is gone!".
Manuever is the key element here. If you're not where you need to be
when you need to be... well, let's say that could get messy.
Resource Management can still be of importance, but in comparison it no
longer has such overwhelming influence over the outcome.
One interesting characteristic I noticed in play is that players tend
to seek Resource Options (generally spells and the like) that reverse
the normal Pace of Decision at a key point. Just thought I'd throw that
in
"0 Pace": Min 1, Average 1, SD 0
These are your one step resolution systems. "Whoever rolls higher on a
d6 wins the fight!" is the basic idea although it can have a lot more
behind it.
This Pace finds favor with those who want the game mechanics to get out
of the way. No room for much in the way of decision making beyond the
decision to fight at all.
Any Manuever is pre-combat, and Resource Management is handled in one
step. You pay your ante and take your chances...
If you play with the various combinations, I'm sure you can see all
sorts of interesting outcomes and changes.
I'm putting it here because Peter mentioned the concept, and what the
heck. Doug said post, so I'm posting.
I make edit it futher and add it to my other 'Elements' articles...
__________________________________
I nearly always consider Pace of Decision first when examining a game
or designing one for it is what is most likely to be directly in the
face of the player (if he recognizes it or not).
For one-on-one combat, there are three important points:
1. What is the Minimum length a battle can be
2. What is the Average length of a battle.
3. What is Standard Deviation of that average length.
These should be answered for equal opponents and it should be measured
in rounds, which in turn consider at their core *one* set of decisions
by the player. Most games define their 'round' in some detail so that
part is easy.
In the case of games like D&D, the answers vary greatly depending upon
the 'level' of the character in question, their gear and the like. So
you may have to determine the value for a number of what you consider
'break' points in character advancement.
The third value is nice to have, but I've never actually calculated it
and have gone with the playtest 'feel'.
Thus Pace of Decision determines risk and the number of choices the
character needs to make. At it's simplest, it's how long a battle
lasts.
A low Minimum and low Average means you have a high Pace of Decision
game while of course higher numbers lower the Pace. Standard Deviation
determines how random it is.
Once you know the Pace, you can look over the *significant* options
provided in the game be they Manuever, Resource Management or
Dissimilar Assets usage (see
http://home.comcast.net/~b.gleichman/Theory/elements/Tactics.htm). The
combination of these determine the tactical complexity.
How hard or easy a job it is to determine the three points for Pact of
Decision is completely dependent upon the system. It comes down to
math. Case in point, dice pools require far more work than most other
systems. You'd have to tailor your approach individually to each set of
mechanics.
For an example, let's walk through a simple example of a D&D like
combat system. To keep it easy, no crit rules, single attack per round.
Nothing fancy.
You pick what you think is a typical combat example, or milestone of
your choice in character progresson. You pair off identical opponents
and start running the numbers.
So in our simplified D&D like system, let's take a pair of combatants
who each have 40 HP and with typical weapons and armor need a 11+ to
hit each other on a D20 doing 1d8+2 weapon damage. In this type of
system, it's basically all Damage per Round numbers.
1. What is the Minimum length:
This would be the case where an attacker rolls successful hits with max
damage each round. With 1d8+2, that means 10 points per round or 4
rounds.
2. What is the Average length
This takes only a little more work in our simple example. The average
roll for 1d8+2 is 6.5 and the attacks only hit half the time. Since the
target has 40 hit points, it would take 40/6.5*2 or 13 rounds (round
up) to resolve the battle on average.
3. What is Standard Deviation
The last step is to determine how randomly the results vary from the
average. Here the math gets much more serious. However it can be
avoided if you have programming skills by modeling the battle in code
and running it several thousand times, then running a Standard
Deviation on the results.
I hope you don't mind if I skip that for this example . Instead I'll
just say that given the number of what is in effect cumulative die
rolls required (on average 6-7 damage rolls) the SD is going to be on
the low side.
So our example system is slow pace with its Minimum of 4, Average of 13
and low Standard Deviation.
A real system is more complex.
D20 for example has crits (easy to deal with as they only increase
damage), increasing HP per level, increasing number of attacks per
level, expected gear per level, etc.
If the effects of increasing level are very significant, you'll want to
do this analysis at a number of different points until you get a feel
for how it changes with advancement. This is very much the case in D&D,
but non-existent in something like Age of Heroes.
The last step is to examine the system for things that alter the Pace
of Decision. In D&D magical healing slows it while many offensive
spells reduce it. These are generally too great in number to do actual
calculations on in mass, but are easy to examine one at a time.
The idea is to look for a baseline, and then examine how the system
varies around that.
Pace of Decision directly effects the game's style of play. One man's
benefit is another's drawback, but leaving that aside there are
characteristics that are important to bear in mind. Let's look over
some examples.
Low Pace: Example Min 4, Average 13, SD low
Classic D&D falls in here.
In this style of game one generally has a lot of time to respond to
events. "Joe's in trouble! If we don't get to him in 3 rounds he's a
goner!"
Generally Manuever doesn't work well in this type of game as the
opponent has time to correct any mistakes.
Resource Management on the other hand can have huge impact, Especially
if by its use a player can significant lower the Pace for a period.
Battles are typical won and lost on this single element.
High Pace: Example Min 1, Average 4, SD low
Age of Heroes falls in this lonely group
Here one may find that time is not on their side, and find that out
quickly. "Joe's in trouble! Opps, Joe is gone!".
Manuever is the key element here. If you're not where you need to be
when you need to be... well, let's say that could get messy.
Resource Management can still be of importance, but in comparison it no
longer has such overwhelming influence over the outcome.
One interesting characteristic I noticed in play is that players tend
to seek Resource Options (generally spells and the like) that reverse
the normal Pace of Decision at a key point. Just thought I'd throw that
in
"0 Pace": Min 1, Average 1, SD 0
These are your one step resolution systems. "Whoever rolls higher on a
d6 wins the fight!" is the basic idea although it can have a lot more
behind it.
This Pace finds favor with those who want the game mechanics to get out
of the way. No room for much in the way of decision making beyond the
decision to fight at all.
Any Manuever is pre-combat, and Resource Management is handled in one
step. You pay your ante and take your chances...
If you play with the various combinations, I'm sure you can see all
sorts of interesting outcomes and changes.