RPGs are an interesting kind of game, and sometimes they contain little other games within them. The broadest, most shared kind of game that RPGs are is something like "A game of make-believe." In this kind of game, the rules exist to help adjudicate what happens when a character attempts to do something, in conjunction with the GM's knowledge of the fictional world and its inhabitants, the local situation & so on. Rules supporting this kind of game can be specific in trying to emulate the fictional reality (Phoenix Command's rules about weapons being an extreme example), or they can be broader "general resolution systems" that can cover a large range of endeavor (something like, "Take your rating in the most relevant attribute and most relevant skill, roll a d20 and add them all together to attempt to beat a difficulty assigned by the GM"). Basically, I'm describing rules intended to simulate something or other. This something or other can even get pretty "meta", not just attempting to simulate the physics of a fictional place, but maybe trying to emulate story structures or genre conventions (something more common in the modern era and with Story Games).
This kind of game, a game of make-believe with rules to add some structure beyond the whims of the individuals involved, is a very different kind of game than chess, Magic: The Gathering, your favorite fighting video game or shooter, poker and so on. There is no defined win condition, for one thing. Winning is essentially "I enjoyed the game." Unlike other kinds of games, the scope of play is basically unbounded. In Monopoly you can't negotiate with the bank, or choose to have a child. This kind of make-believe game permits what I call "outside-the-box" tactics, or I believe S. John Ross calls "Tactical Infinity", which means tactics that originate in the fictional situation and not in the manipulation of the game rules (which can be limited in scope, providing a menu of options). RPGs don't all choose to remain only games of make-believe with rules in those veins, however.
The more common style of games we know, outside of RPGs, are games with rules, a constrained field of play, and win conditions. A good part of the joy in these kinds of games is in operating the mechanics skillfully to pull out a win. In these kinds of games, "balance" becomes an important factor, and ideally there is an entertaining variety of viable tactics players can use in attempting to win. For example, Magic: The Gathering provides a number of strategies that fare better or worse against other well executed strategies, it's not just chance, or that winning is about knowing a singular "right way to play". Still, these games vary in how much they are about strategic play, the point is that they are of a limited scope and have win conditions. A slot machine, Trouble, Sorry! and Candyland all qualify, but don't provide room for a lot of tactics. You more or less operate the mechanics until there is a winner (or loser, in the case of slot machines...).
Now RPGs, in addition to being games of make-believe, quite often (but not always) attempt to be games of this sort, but usually only in limited parts of play (usually combat). Some of them are better, in my opinion, at providing for deeper tactics (Street Fighter: The Storytelling Game), and others worse (I don't wanna say, but I feel many RPGs provide players with fun powers that you set off like fireworks you've earned by grinding a new level or whatever, but they don't enrich the tactical vibe or possibilities much).
So, this touches on the two categories of tactics I've mentioned. There are the tactics made possible by the "Tactical Infinity" of make-believe roleplaying, and there are the tactics possible by skillfully manipulating the rules in various subsystems in some RPGs, where they attempt to be or contain games addressing certain fields of endeavor. In any event, I could go on about this at length, but I enjoy the tactics in both kinds of gaming.
As for how tactics go sour for me, it all comes down to my personal preferences. My preference for seeing what a player comes up with in-character on the spot means that any time play is paused and other players workshop what a character should do... my interest wanes. Lengthy in session planning, where hypotheticals are considered and objections raised can also be a drag, especially if they are conducted out-of-character, or refer to stats on the character sheet and how they inform who specifically should do what. Finally, any time a player sees a fictional situation as a game that must be won and in an attempt to win the situation has their character take unrealistic actions, or expects other players to, it undermines the make-believe, and the make-believe takes priority for me in an RPG. I feel RPGs do make-believe better than the other kind of game, and so to undermine that is to undermine what the game does best. An extreme example of this latter thing might be... playing a child in a horror game, who is a cooly efficient, fearless killer who also happens to know the monsters' weaknesses. That example is a bit on the sillier side, but you get the idea.
Anyways, that's #RPGaDay2021 day 3 in the can!
No comments:
Post a Comment