Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8266351" data-attributes="member: 82106">What I mean is, the world is NOT CONSTRAINED, and in those dimensions of non-constraint it isn't possible for the players to reason about strategy, since no information can, by definition, exist in those dimensions. The GM is simply free to make up anything, so the potentially viable strategies is simply a dynamic set of whatever things the GM decides at any given moment in time will work.Why does everyone focus on 'screwing you over'? I mean, sure that is a way a GM can behave, but if you have been reading the thread there isn't even remotely a consensus on what that would look like! Obviously every decision the GM makes will favor one side or the other. Equally obviously any that are not favorable to the PCs are not 'screwing them over' or else GM judgment would be an impossibility. The GM does, however, have SOME REASON for every decision, and I assert most of those reasons are gamist in nature (having run these sorts of scenarios 100's of times, and participated in them an equal amount I think I speak from solid general experience here).As an open world RPG where the referee (GM) has to take the side of the opponent, and also has motivation to provide a good game (IE gamist considerations) strategy is not always even a consideration, or at best it has to compete with others. A wargame, at least in my parlance, has a definitive 'closed world' set of rules, OR it has an independent referee who isn't playing one side. Chainmail falls in the later category, though mostly in the former also, as did Dave's original Blackmoor apparently (it had players PCs as both sides according to what I understand, at least part of the time).D&D is nothing like a closed world type of game at all.Which is 99% of the world. This is less important in very tightly controlled scenarios, hence the dungeon delve as the standard model, but as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] has often observed, B/X and its attempt to apply that model to the wilderness doesn't even work that well, it is a much more open-ended world where the rules cover only a tiny fraction of all the relevant considerations.And when one or the other side decides to do something slightly out of the box, you will run off the end of those rules. It isn't even so much rules as it is information about the campaign world. Details really matter. Where does the goblin tribe get the fletching for their arrows? I want to deprive them of missile weapons so I can defeat them easily. I mean, think of all the ways one society has used to defeat another. I won't recapitulate the grim history of my own people, but the real world suggest quite a few strategies, but they all depend in various ways on details of logistics, culture, disease, etc. which are CERTAINLY neither part of the D&D rules, nor part of any established campaign world I've ever seen.Tactics, yes. What is the effect of higher waves and which ships does it effect in different ways? Can you carry an extra 500 lbs of supplies, and what effect does that have? Who supplies the pitch used in your naval construction program, and can I disrupt that supply? Obviously ALL of the questions above CAN be given answers. Most likely a GM just eyeballs it, or makes something up because no information exists. I mean, lets assume in every case you make up something that is intended to make it difficult but possible for PCs to execute a strategy using that information (or defend against one). Is that realistic and would the players actually expect that outcome? Will it work out reasonably in the game, and what are they thinking of that is not the same as what you're thinking of? Wargames don't have this kind of problem. Real life DOES, but at least you can apply logic and observation to validate your ideas and test them, which is really hard to emulate in the game.Wargames are 'closed world' games, yes. RPGs are not, and thus no codified or complete/extensive list of relevant factors exists. Obviously the corollary to this is that you can try ANYTHING in an RPG, where a wargame has predefined the possible options. Good wargames still have room for quite a bit of tactics within that boundary though.D&D, in even its 1e form, has few or none of the elements of wargames, actually. I mean, it has a combat resolution system, which is pretty typically present in wargames, but again, it is pretty open-ended.I'm not sure what point you are making here?Warhammer doesn't allow for open-ended actions. It is no different from Afrika Corps. Only a fixed set of things can happen, etc. Maybe at best players can agree on additional rules to cover a specific scenario before play starts. Chainmail OTOH does specify a referee. This allows for 'fog of war', which isn't really possible in Warhammer, which is a whole added level of realism. Also the referee can provide for information neither side has, etc. So, maybe Warhammer players don't 'need' a referee, but its lack does put limitations on the game. I'm arguing that RPGs, with open worlds and no truly neutral referee, are not conducive to genuine exercises in strategy.</blockquote>

Verification