How important is player knowledge of game mechanics?

[Joe Krow]

Tactics rely on the ruleset. The queen takes the rook sometimes? No thanks. Ambiguity in the ruleset causes a tactical dumbing down.

MADNESS! Every tactical game since Panzerblitz has some randomization of "Queen vs. Rook". Are they dumb?

If your going to argue that randomizing the outcome of chess captures would improve the game tactically well... this thread will go to twenty pages easy and I want no part it.

Ambiguity of outcomes is fine. Probabilities are fine. My point was that the more mystery there is in regards to attributes/abilities the less opportunity the player has to form meaningful tactics. To take your analogy: how much fun would playing Panzerblitz be if all of your unit's stats/attributes were replaced with descriptions that were left deliberately unquantifiable? MADNESS!

 

[RK47]

Pistol
Damage: Depends on where you hit them. On the leg may cause crippling injuries, grazed hit won't kill. Head shot generally drops them in 1-2 hits.
Ammo: Six Shot
Reload Time: Slow
Weight: Not too heavy

vs

Pistol
Dmg: 2-11
Head/Torso/Leg Critical: 50%(Death)/25%(Stamina)/33%(Cripple)
Ammo: 6
Reload Time: 3AP
Weight: Req STR 3 else attack penalty -1

 

[mondblut]

In fact, CRPGs were played in this way. Eye of the Beholder, Dungeon Master, Lands of Lore... These games rarely told you an exact number.

In EOB, you know your level, stats and HP in game. Weapon damage and armor AC are listed in the manual. The only relevant information truly hidden is THAC0 and saving throws, the former still being transparent for anybody with AD&D knowledge or experience of earlier games, the later largely unimportant (being a passively invoked stat you have no control over anyway).

And none of those are shining examples of RPG perfection. Hell, DM for 1987 and LOL for 1993 are exactly what Diablo was for 1996 - dumbed-down clickfests.

Notice that games contemporary to EOB and based on same system but aiming for a deeper, more thoughtful gameplay - ie later Goldbox series and Darksun - did gave all relevant numbers (again sans saving throws) ingame, from exact weapon damage to THAC0. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[zenbitz]

Tactics rely on the ruleset. The queen takes the rook sometimes? No thanks. Ambiguity in the ruleset causes a tactical dumbing down.

If your going to argue that randomizing the outcome of chess captures would improve the game tactically well... this thread will go to twenty pages easy and I want no part it.

I didn't argue that - I am arguing that tactical simulations aren't deterministic. Chess is a terrible example of a tactical game, in the sense that "tactical" relates to rw warfare and fighting. So the original point of "queen takes rook sometimes" is irrelvant.

Ambiguity of outcomes is fine. Probabilities are fine. My point was that the more mystery there is in regards to attributes/abilities the less opportunity the player has to form meaningful tactics. To take your analogy: how much fun would playing Panzerblitz be if all of your unit's stats/attributes were replaced with descriptions that were left deliberately unquantifiable? MADNESS!

Strawman. The question is (and it is not objective as 1/2 the posters n this thread seem to think it is ) - what level of information maximizes the fun+simulation value of the game.

As for panzerblitz - Do you think a tactical tank simulation game would be improved by a neutral GM who is "blinding" both sides? Have you ever played kriegspiel?

Do you think two professional soliders could argue over which was the superior assault rifle? M16 or AK47? Which one is right?

Too much information leads to pat decisions in RPGs. For example, if I have a game with M16s and AK47s - and their stats at all ranges are known by the player - then the player is going to always choose the better one. Actually, what they would do is choose both, and the game would let them seamlessly flip back and forth depending on which had the slightly better min/maxed potential at each range and situation.

This has a pretty poor simulation value to me. Game value is, in the Eye of the Beholder.

 

[Turok]

Sometimes i like no know the mechanics, but sometimes is really needed to know then.

I dont like know then because i end making a super awesome powa caracter and everything is piece of cake (combat) and in end get bored because of it and not finish it. Of course there is other games that if you begin it with the left foot you end deleting your save games and beggining from cero.

 

[Thrasher]

Too much information leads to pat decisions in RPGs. For example, if I have a game with M16s and AK47s - and their stats at all ranges are known by the player - then the player is going to always choose the better one. Actually, what they would do is choose both, and the game would let them seamlessly flip back and forth depending on which had the slightly better min/maxed potential at each range and situation.

This has a pretty poor simulation value to me. Game value is, in the Eye of the Beholder.

Umm, it's your game. If you hate repetitive gameplay based on YOUR own "pat" decisions, then you have no one to fault but yourself. In a single player PvM RPG you don't have to play optimal. PvP or MMOs, well, I'm not interested. Too many immature brats online.

Now, if the PvM game doesn't offer viable alternative builds/tactics that are fun to play, then it's the game's fault that you are bored. By "viable" I mean able to win, but not necessarily optimal or easiest.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

Umm, it's your game. If you hate repetitive gameplay based on YOUR own "pat" decisions, then you have no one to fault but yourself.

That's not true if the game directly motivates you to make these "pat" decisions. In most games there are basically two types of weapons/equipment/skills : the good ones meant to be used, and the bad ones meant to be avoided, bud provide an illusion of variation. And for the whole game you can feel like a really smart guy who can optimize your character without wasting a single skill point.

Kind of analogy towards fake choices and consequences, where there are choices, but they don't actually matter.

 

[Thrasher]

No it doesn't motivate me when it makes the game boring. If you can't resist powergaming, then that's your choice, not the game's fault.

 

[felicity]

INSANITY. You are saying that we need to "know" the rules because it improves simulation value? Did Rommel know what the odds were at El Alamein? - War - and we are talking about war and combat simulations here for the most part - is all about chaos and imperfect information. Knowing all the odds all the time lets players make perfect decisions when RL counter parts would make mistakes sometimes. It actually destroys simulation value, albeit at the expense (sometimes) of improved gamesmenship.

You left out my first sentence which kinda explains your question. I said ruleset in cRPG isn't about simulation but abstraction of reality. In cRPG many things cannot be rightly simulated. (By rightly simulate I mean the gameworld mechanic can be known intuitively by player, like direction for example can be simulated pretty well - and this makes sense since direction IS intuition.) That's where abstraction comes into play. And I agree with everyone who posted in this thread that simulation of combat tends to dumb down the tactical aspect of gameplay and either making the gameplay twitchy or just less fun overall.

And don't say abstraction is inherently bad to roleplaying, it is not. Language is abstraction, a very high level abstraction even. It's symbolic representation of reality (ok maybe not, just saying). So is it obtrusive to use words? It could be more difficult with numbers in some cases I presume, but definitely not in all case, and especially not when imagination is in liberty. In many cases it is desirable to display transparant rules. For instance, a rogue passed a reflex check and dodged a fireball. The log displays 10 + 6 = 16 vs DC 16. Then you know the rogue evaded it only barely. To depict this with words would be cumbersome.

Ruleset is the backbone, so to speak; the logic behind the gameworld. This doesn't mean it makes the gameworld deterministic or completely predictable however. Game-maker can implement randomness in their ruleset, D20 system for example, which let player knows what about to expect yet not completely rid of accident.

 

[zenbitz]

INSANITY. You are saying that we need to "know" the rules because it improves simulation value? Did Rommel know what the odds were at El Alamein? - War - and we are talking about war and combat simulations here for the most part - is all about chaos and imperfect information. Knowing all the odds all the time lets players make perfect decisions when RL counter parts would make mistakes sometimes. It actually destroys simulation value, albeit at the expense (sometimes) of improved gamesmenship.

You left out my first sentence which kinda explains your question. I said ruleset in cRPG isn't about simulation but abstraction of reality. In cRPG many things cannot be rightly simulated. (By rightly simulate I mean the gameworld mechanic can be known intuitively by player, like direction for example can be simulated pretty well - and this makes sense since direction IS intuition.) That's where abstraction comes into play. And I agree with everyone who posted in this thread that simulation of combat tends to dumb down the tactical aspect of gameplay and either making the gameplay twitchy or just less fun overall.

I admit, I took your quote out of context. However, I believe that simulation <=> tactical gameplay is a false dichotomy. And "fun" is obviously subjective.

And don't say abstraction is inherently bad to roleplaying, it is not. In many cases it is desirable to display transparant rules. For instance, a rogue passed a reflex check and dodged a fireball. The log displays 10 + 6 = 16 vs DC 16. Then you know the rogue evaded it only barely. To depict this with words would be cumbersome.

But abstraction is an attempt to model reality, it's just a short cut. And of course, abstration isn't bad for roleplaying - or any "real world" type game, it's essential to it.

What's cumbersome about "You barely dodge the fireball". That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than 10+6 compared to 16 - which looks like a tie to me. A tie goes to the rogue or the fireball? Why do I care? Either I am smoked or not! (or partially smoked, etc.)

And it's not the reporting tha's the issue - it's the pre knowledge. That rogue KNOWS that he has exactly a 33.3% chance of dodging the fireball thrown by a wizard a certain distance away. This is not information any PC has. He may know from expereience "well I am pretty good at dodging stuff thrown at me, so I should be able to dodge a fireball sometimes". But he will not know if it's 10%, 33%, 50%, 80% - whatever. He won't even know the skill of the thrower!

 

[Thrasher]

But is modeling reality really important?

Or is playing a game with known rules more important?

I vote for the latter.

 

[zenbitz]

But is modeling reality really important?

Obviously, to me, it is. Considering I am making a game where it will really really suck to get shot.

I vote for the latter.

Dulely noted. However, you don't get one vote per post.

 

[Joe Krow]

Do you think two professional soldiers could argue over which was the superior assault rifle? M16 or AK47? Which one is right?

Neither. These weapons are more then just the damage they cause (which might well be identical). The stopping power would be a consideration but so would durability, weight, range, etc. Is it prone to jamming? How does it handle moisture, dust, etc. The argument two professional soldiers would have would be about the subjective importance they place on the objective characteristic's of each. They would know if there was a significant difference in any of these attributes. Their preference would be based on them. The contention in this thread seems to be that trained warriors wouldn't know these differences. I disagree.

Too much information leads to pat decisions in RPGs. For example, if I have a game with M16s and AK47s - and their stats at all ranges are known by the player - then the player is going to always choose the better one.

If there is a discernible difference in its attributes then 1. The character would know, 2. the player will use the item he thinks better. If all other things are equal but one causes more damage then there is no comparison required. Why is that a problem? It's kind of the point.

From a design perspective the selection can be made more interesting by increasing the number of attributes. One does more damage the other is more accurate. Which is right? One shield adds +1 to AC the other reduces damage from lightning and fire by 15%. Which is better?

The solution proposed in this thread seems to be hiding the few variables that are used currently. My solution would be adding more.

 

[Kaiserin]

From a design perspective the selection can be made more interesting by increasing the number of attributes. One does more damage the other is more accurate. Which is right? One shield adds +1 to AC the other reduces damage from lightning and fire by 15%. Which is better?

Unless it's a very well balanced game, even these questions become superficial after a while. In many games, damage is a lot more important than range, etc. Look at Fallout, no reason to use AP ammo as it stands, EVER.

 

[felicity]

I believe that simulation <=> tactical gameplay is a false dichotomy.

Yes I agree. In a way all abstractions are simulation, and no simulation is without some abstraction. It is easy to get into arguing which is simulation and which is abstraction.

What's cumbersome about "You barely dodge the fireball". That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than 10+6 compared to 16 - which looks like a tie to me. A tie goes to the rogue or the fireball? Why do I care? Either I am smoked or not! (or partially smoked, etc.)

Showing the roll is important because it represents the character's skill in practice. And the character should know how close it was on that evasion attempt. The roll could be 17 or 18 and it could still be called "barely pass". Why do I care if it's barely pass or pass? Because I prefer a more sophisticate system? How many adjective do you need to do the same thing like a math formula can? And how confusing would that be? I have no problem imagine my character dodging fireball matrix style if I have to. I don't need no stinking generic text report of my character performance.

And it's not the reporting tha's the issue - it's the pre knowledge. That rogue KNOWS that he has exactly a 33.3% chance of dodging the fireball thrown by a wizard a certain distance away. This is not information any PC has. He may know from expereience "well I am pretty good at dodging stuff thrown at me, so I should be able to dodge a fireball sometimes". But he will not know if it's 10%, 33%, 50%, 80% - whatever. He won't even know the skill of the thrower!

It's not pre-knowledge if you don't see the roll until the character has done the check.
Afterwards it's reasonable that the character should know the odds.

 

[zenbitz]

Do you think two professional soldiers could argue over which was the superior assault rifle? M16 or AK47? Which one is right?

Neither. These weapons are more then just the damage they cause (which might well be identical). The contention in this thread seems to be that trained warriors wouldn't know these differences. I disagree.

They would certainly believe they knew the difference. "Most" of them might even get the direction of the effect correct. Magnitude? Doubt it. They are going to have a preference based on their personal experience with the weapon. Now, lets take this back a step - what if they WEREN'T professionals. What if they are just some street dude who finds one of each. How many rounds does he need to fire to determine the differences between these weapons? Do they have to be fired in the heat of battle? Or when he practices is he going to go out of his way to "jam" the weapon. Is he going to jump in a lake with each one and see which one works better in a week?

From a design perspective the selection can be made more interesting by increasing the number of attributes. One does more damage the other is more accurate. Which is right? One shield adds +1 to AC the other reduces damage from lightning and fire by 15%. Which is better?

Well, in a typical RPG, the PC carries around both, and whips out the 2nd one for Red and Blue dragons only. But HTF would you even _suspect_ that a shield blocks 15% of ELECTRICAL damage? Ask it? Read the manual?

The solution proposed in this thread seems to be hiding the few variables that are used currently. My solution would be adding more.

I don't have a problem with variables... I just got reamed (sorta) by the design team for making a T-Shirt have 8 variables...

 

[BethesdaLove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPY-a2fIbxs

 

[Khor1255]

A really well built game would require almost no knowledge of it's mechanics. The more intuative the system, the better a job the interface and general game designer has done.

 

[Thrasher]

Then that is not a game. What you are describing is a simulation.

 

[Khor1255]

No, a good interface is as close to intuitive as possible.

We are talking about rpgs and not checkers, right?

 

[Thrasher]

Interface is not game mechanics and rules.

We are talking about game mechanics and rules, not interface.

 

[Khor1255]

Yikes.

We are talking about how involved a PLAYER has to get in the game's rule system. THIS IS AN INTERFACE ISSUE. Let me walk you through it, the interface is not just the shiny little buttons you push but also the actual game mechanics behind those buttons and that 'physics' system.

I say again, the more intuitive a game's system is the better.

Do you get it now?

 

[Thrasher]

No. Game mechanics and rules define the GAME. Intuitive interfaces are about simulation, not gaming.

 

[OSK]

Depends on my goal in the game. If my focus is on strategy, then yes, I want all the information I can get to make informed decisions. If the focus is to enjoy an adventure, then it's not nearly as important.

 

[Khor1255]

I guess Thrasher is hung up on stock definitions of what interface means. But for the rest of the world, interface deeply involves game mechanics (i.e. the way a human being INTERFACES with a game is maybe about 10% buttons and 90% game mechanics <again>.

Whether your focus is on strategy or scenery an intuitive game interface (read: including game physics) is a much better approach.