More on Combat as Chess

-

I think I have more to say on the idea of combat as chess. I brought it up in this post, but it was one example of the potential detail of a fictional world (a theme I would like to revisit, at some point). But I want to expand on the idea, and why to do it.

What is combat as chess? It's combat where you can make informed, player skill-based decisions in combat. That means the players know everything they need to make a plan: how far away are the enemies? How many? What are their strengths and weaknesses? The players have the opportunity to brainstorm and attempt a plan entirely of their choosing.

It necessitates an open-information policy by the referee. You can't know if it's worth getting hit if you don't know how hard the enemy hits. Suspense is nice in a game, but if your character's life is on the line, making an informed decision can save you the pain of rolling a new one. The goal here is cost-benefit analysis: How can I make an optimal decision, given that I can do anything?

It needs flexibility for rulings. Don't put forward a list of actions for the players to choose from; instead, allow them to be creative with their items and surroundings. Give them avenues in all directions. The goal should be tactical inspiration. (Chess does not adhere strictly to this, but allows a lot of flexibility by offering many tools for the job: any piece can put an opponent in check).

It also needs clarity and adherence on in-world logic. Not reliance on tropes, but understanding the implicit mechanics. Water puts out fire, but not a dragon's breath in your face. The obvious thing happens. Refs undermine players' plans when they subvert the actions by the world. Some might call this railroading, I simply call it not fun. Procedures and rules can enforce this, but it's faster and more flexible for the players to think for yourself.

Why do combat as chess? It's fun, in a critical thinking way. Don't think chess or sudoku, think of a riddle or an improv game. How do I build upon a situation to achieve my goal? I know the parameters, let me manipulate the elements in an unpredictable and novel way. The autonomy given is unbeatable. 

What do I need to do to prepare? Prepare an enemy that's interesting. An easily described ability or defense. Big, but with a blindspot. Scrawny, but has a flamethrower. The number of possibilities there, times the possibilities of the players, grows so quickly. Think realistically of how the enemy could beat them, given that the world works consistently.

The outcome of combat will surprise everyone. That is fun. It's competitively collaborative: Yes, you hit me, and... Anything can happen. It's like watching a new movie, every time you play. And you can't look up the plot on Wikipedia.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thinking Small: The Fictional World has a Surprising Amount of Detail

-
Probably a year or two ago I read a blog post from outside the DnD-sphere, Reality has a surprising amount of detail . It stuck with me all this time, and eventually the little worm in my brain that this post spawned crawled and ate its way through my neatly compartmentalized mind into my DnD brain. I haven't reread the article since my first reading, but the title is what really stuck with me. The worm has digested this idea, and the result is a little nugget of an idea I want to expand upon here. The blog post talks first about how constructing a set of wooden steps, in a precise manner, is actually quite difficult. Figuring out how the pieces of wood should be cut, fit together, and secured take some planning and precision. This is all to make stairs that simply fit together. Bearing weight is another manner. The OSR is all about having a "realistic" world - one that operates on consistent internal logic, even with fantastical elements. That means if you really wanted ...
Read more

Empty Rooms Should be Just That and the 5 Room Dungeon

-
Just a quick explanation of an OSR dungeon design principle for those unfamiliar. This is maybe not a well-touted idea, but I've been brewing on this idea lately. Of course, this is all centered around how I want to play, run... etc... Take with coarse grained salt if you think your goals are different. If you've got a dungeon, you should have some empty rooms that don't.... do anything. As in, there is nothing 'to do' in the room. I have been brewing this idea based on what Luke Gearing said in his interview on the "Into the Megadungeon" podcast. I'll just rehash what Luke conveyed in my listening: Empty rooms provide a place to rest (my words) Empty rooms give space to a dungeon so that you don't die at every turn Empty rooms are tactically important for managing encounters, especially in conjunction with loops   Luke gave an easy example of how to utilize empty rooms: You pass through some empty rooms, and eventually encounter a big room with a ...
Read more

Thinking Small Adventures

-
 I want to explain a philosophy for adventure design I have developed on, I hope: thinking small. Honey I Shrunk the Adventure! Many good adventures give lots of play out of small packages. This is not a new idea. The 3 hex campaign start and 5 room dungeon are known for giving creativity via constraints (a well-touted idea). Brevity in the adventure text is also a much-loved and effective way to give creativity through vagueries. I see these as a part of a core rule of thumb: do more with less. I think this is a great design philosophy. I would like to push it a bit further, and to a potentially new aspect of the rule of thumb, that deserves just as much attention. Before, I have written a  scenario premise , which you can get a whole session out of (in most cases), and I've mentioned before having a cool idea . I want to propose a design philosophy: have the core danger of a setting fit into a single coherent description, and a summary of an adventure location fit into a par...
Read more