Quote from: JamesVSo, knowing you as a person who is interested in complexity in their game, what do you see as an acceptable solution to the problem? Is it in more rules, creating a system of hit locations with their own HPs, etc., or is it simply making sure that the abstraction is well understood by the players?

Sometimes just explaining the abstraction (and its benefits) is enough to make it accepted. A good set of Designer Notes is your best friend here (but almost unheard outside Age of Heroes). But depending upon the targeted players, this may not be enough and you may have to 'fix' it.

Fixing can be as simple as renaming the elements. Instead of Hit Points- call it Fatigue, instead of Damage- call it Pressing (i.e., "roll a die to determine how pressed your foes was"). Have zero hit points not result in dying, but rather the next attack being actual physical damage as you've run out of wind, room and ideas to protect yourself.

This breaks the mental image the original word choice provided. I believe some of the D20 offshoots do some of thus by splitting up HP into two pools (Star Wars comes to mind).

Depending upon one's viewpoint, this may well be enough.

However D&D combat may still be too abstract for some tastes as the above simple changes may not produce an intuitive flow of combat from begining to end.

For myself, the next question is "Why do battles never end on the first blow when we know such combat often does end decisively with a single swing?"

The answer is because the system abstraction doesn't allow it- this is a break with what we do know about melee combat and we have to start another review of the system. The outcome was fine, but the method left to get to it doesn't reflect the source material.

Attempts to fix this have legion, most are types of critical hit systems. Sadly all of them undermine one of D&D's features, that of predictable combat itself along with its slow Pace of Decision (that takes full advantage of resource management as the prime tactical consideration in D&D).

At some point, the effort to make an abstraction work exceeds the return, i.e. the complexity of mass increases beyond desired levels. When that happens it may be time to abandon that abstraction for another that doesn't clash with expectations.

Needless to say, for my own needs I had to break completely with D&D and move to a different system. Note that it wasn't a matter of wanting more complexity- I think an author would be a fool to design to that end. I wanted simple, but I wanted also to match my vision. The resulting rules of AoH is a  compromise between those two factors.

Quote from: JamesVFor me, I'm inclined to the latter. I like my combats to be fast and well-paced, and as far as my GMing style goes, complexity threatens to bog things down.

There are different types of complexity of course, and depending upon how and individual handles them- various systems judged by others may be simple to one's self. Rolemaster was famous for debates on this point with some seeing it as easy, and other complex.

Lastly "Fast" and "Well-Paced" means different things to different people. IME, anytime I see those times used I have a rather bad reaction.

Quote from: gleichman*snip a lot of goodness*
Lastly "Fast" and "Well-Paced" means different things to different people. IME, anytime I see those times used I have a rather bad reaction.

Slaps forehead
First, I have to admit that properly naming elements is not only a shockingly elegant way to solve the problem of clarifying abstractions, but also something that didn't occur to me. It's so obvious it's kinda embarassing for me to think about.

To explain by what I mean by fast and well-paced, is that I like my combat rounds to move quickly around the table by keeping elements simple and low in number. Hm, maybe I can use your own terms from the Elements of Tactics essay correctly to describe the style of combat I prefer:

Resource Management: I like myself and my players to have keep track of only a few resources in combat like damage capacity, a few actions per round, and one or two class specific power pools, like magic.

Dissimilar Assets: For me it's about class protection. I prefer to have strong niches to encourage team tactics.

Manuever: Is very minimal, with maybe facing and maybe simple adjustments for environment being of any importance.

My hope is that the rules yield a lower level of complexity that keeps the dice rolling and the action moving around the table with little waiting. I also like the like the system to have a medium Pace of Decision that gives some leeway, but still has risks.

Something I'm wondering about regarding Pace of Decision:

QuoteAttempts to fix this have legion, most are types of critical hit systems. Sadly all of them undermine one of D&D's features, that of predictable combat itself along with its slow Pace of Decision (that takes full advantage of resource management as the prime tactical consideration in D&D).

I think that a critical hit system is a useful solution to increasing a fight's level of risk, but you have reservations where D&D is concerned. Is your concern just about D&D since the rules encourage low risk combats, or do you have issues with critical hits in general?

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe degree to which representational objects (AC from armor, AC from Dex, HP from class/level, HP from Con, weapon damage, damage bonus, attacker skill) are put in blender to output a result of "damaged" leads me to believe that one would be better off with something like Heroquest or a single roll that just took all those elements as factors in finding a column and diceroll modifer on a wargame-like CRT.

That is likely true given your tastes in abstraction.

But as a sideline, it's completely counter to the goals of D&D. It basically reduces the casual chain to one step- and this greatly reduces the resource management requirements that is the key feature of the D&D style play.

D&D was designed to be a game first, and it simulates nothing but itself as a result.

Quote from: JamesVSlaps forehead
First, I have to admit that properly naming elements is not only a shockingly elegant way to solve the problem of clarifying abstractions, but also something that didn't occur to me. It's so obvious it's kinda embarassing for me to think about.

Simple (that still means need) is always best

Quote from: JamesVMy hope is that the rules yield a lower level of complexity that keeps the dice rolling and the action moving around the table with little waiting. I also like the like the system to have a medium Pace of Decision that gives some leeway, but still has risks.

I think I understand a little better what you're aiming for.

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 of 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.

The third value is nice to have, but I've never actually calculated it and have gone with playtest 'feel'.

Thus Pace of Decision determines risk and the number of choices the character needs to make.

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. The combination of these determine the tactical complexity.

How fun is that?

Quote from: JamesVI think that a critical hit system is a useful solution to increasing a fight's level of risk, but you have reservations where D&D is concerned. Is your concern just about D&D since the rules encourage low risk combats, or do you have issues with critical hits in general?

I'm not opposed to them as such and Age of Heroes makes use of them. There are certain methods however that I don't like.

For example: In general I think a damage system should be able to inflict the full range of results against a target. This is why AoH uses the more difficult "critical change = 1/20 of the strike chance" method instead of the easier "if you hit by 30 you cause a crit". The latter can remove a crit as a possibility against some foes, the former will only do that at the most extreme end.

So my concern about Criticals in this thread was with respect to D&D. They in effect shorten the Pace of Decision and allow the affected player fewer rounds to make his decisions. That isn't bad of and by itself, but it's counter to the original D&D design goals.

Hey, Gleichman!  

First impression: (To paraphrase John Bowman from 2001: A Space Odyssey) "My God!  It's full of charts!"  

Quote from: VellorianHey, Gleichman!  

First impression: (To paraphrase John Bowman from 2001: A Space Odyssey) "My God!  It's full of charts!"  

Just be careful it doesn't get out of hand and eat Jupiter. That would muck things up.

And people were worried we weren't going to be able to discuss Theory without referencing that other Forum...sheesh...

This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for when I first started toying with the idea of creating a game and went asearchin' on the Web.

Quote from: gleichmanI nearly always consider Pace of Decision first when examining a game or designing one for it's is what is most likely 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.

Can you talk a little bit, or redirect me to info of which you know, that explain how do you go about examining these three points?  Is there a specific method you use, or suggest, to go about this?

Quote from: gleichmanThus Pace of Decision determines risk and the number of choices the character needs to make.

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. The combination of these determine the tactical complexity.

How fun is that?

Is this, then, the definition of the Pace of Decision? Is it simply the number of rounds it takes to resolve the event?

And don't kid yourself - some of us are all ears...

Quote from: FeanorIs this, then, the definition of the Pace of Decision? Is it simply the number of rounds it takes to resolve the event?

Reduced to its simplest terms, yes.

At it fullest: Shortest Length, Average Length, and a judgement as to how random the range of those lengths are. And those values over the typical range of play.

Quote from: FeanorCan you talk a little bit, or redirect me to info of which you know, that explain how do you go about examining these three points?  Is there a specific method you use, or suggest, to go about this?

I'm not aware of anyone online who's using similar techniques but I've been out of touch for a while. I would imagine that MMO designers have (or should have) similar methods in their toolbox, although how common the usage would be is something I wouldn't know.

How hard or easy a job it is to determe the three points is completely dependent upon the system because 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.

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.

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.

This is all useful for me. I have to ask you if there is any chance that you'll at least put up the rest of your articles, if any, on your web page. If I can't have the privilege of picking your brain, I'd settle for the next best thing.

Quote from: gleichmanJust be careful it doesn't get out of hand and eat Jupiter. That would muck things up.

Wouldn't that require a little more mass?  I'm thinking something like Ptolus in size?  

Fantastic! Thanks.  Once I read it, it made perfect sense - but I needed the examples.  Only now, I've got followup questions.

Let's say I've calculated the Pace of Decision for several progression points in my shiny new rule system.  In your opinion, what are the any inherent benfits/drawbacks to a low/high PoD?

Quote from: gleichmanOnce you know the Pace, you can look over the *significant* options provided in the game be they Manuever, Resource Management or Dissimilar Assets usage. The combination of these determine the tactical complexity.

I assume the following meanings from the quote:

• Manuever - the ability, through movement, to either end the event, or prolong the event to allow for an even higher PoD and more options (retreat, etc.)


• Resource Management - Arrows, Spells, Food, Water, etc.


• Dissimilar Assets - No idea...

Are these "definitions" correct?  Can you provide some more information on the term "Dissimilar Assets"? Is this an exhaustive list of significant options?  If not, what other things are significant options? How do all of the significant options combine with the PoD to determine the complexity?

Since I'm most familiar with D&D/D20 (a little GURPS) those examples worked well...hint hint...

Again - can't tell you how useful this is...

Quote from: JamesVThis is all useful for me. I have to ask you if there is any chance that you'll at least put up the rest of your articles, if any, on your web page. If I can't have the privilege of picking your brain, I'd settle for the next best thing.

I stop writing articles after I left RPGNet, after all I didn't see much reason to keep on doing them. So since then there was one Elements meant for RPGNet that I pulled from being published, and the GNS essay that I've referenced elsewhere. Both are up on the website.

So what you see is what you get. Sorry.

If you like, shoot me a PM and we'll exchange email addresses. You could always shoot me a question directly.

Quote from: VellorianWouldn't that require a little more mass?  I'm thinking something like Ptolus in size?  

AoH of Heroes has reach the complexity point where it can self-replicate at at an astounding rate. Nasty business to say the least.

Don't feed it after midnight.

Quote from: FeanorI assume the following meanings from the quote:
Are these "definitions" correct?  Can you provide some more information on the term "Dissimilar Assets"?

This was at the end of your reply, but it makes a better beginning for my answer.

The terms are defined here:
http://home.comcast.net/~b.gleichman/Theory/elements/Tactics.htm

Quote from: FeanorIs this an exhaustive list of significant options?

I'd like to think so

There aren't any others I'm aware of.

Quote from: FeanorLet's say I've calculated the Pace of Decision for several progression points in my shiny new rule system.  In your opinion, what are the any inherent benfits/drawbacks to a low/high PoD?

One man's benefit is another's drawback, but leaving that aside there are characteristics that are important to bear in mind.

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.

Ok, I think that wraps that up. My time for the brief visit is up. Sorry Andy K, but I get to keep my $20.

If anyone cares, you'll be able to reach me by PM for while. I've set it to notify me or of course you could email direct. Well, until my hotmail account dies from disuse again anyway.

If the site changes ownership again, someone clue me in and I'll stop by (unless it goes back to the Nunkins, even RPGPundit is an improvement on them).

Thanks for the discussions everyone. I actually had a good time. Good luck with your games.