Why Don't You Move Your Queen Every Turn?

[Dausuul]

Edited to add: Since this seems to be causing some confusion, the analogy I'm trying to draw is "Each chess piece equals a spell or ability possessed by a PC," not "Each chess piece equals a PC." Although feel free to run with the latter if you see something interesting there!

So, I was musing on game design and balancing character options and stuff like that, and drawing analogies to other types of games, and I got to thinking about chess. And I found myself asking:

When you're playing chess, why don't you move your queen every turn?

Each turn of chess, you get to take exactly one action. You have a number of options available for that action; you could move a pawn, or a knight, or a bishop, or a rook, or your queen, or your king. Out of those options, the queen is indisputably the most powerful. So why (aside from the initial pawn move required to open her up) would you ever move any other piece?

That's not a request for explanation of the basics of chess, incidentally. I play chess and I would certainly never, in practice, attempt to play a game moving only my queen. What I'm getting at is, what's the underlying principle of game design that makes pawns and knights and bishops viable in a game that also contains the queen?

So far, I have come up with four answers:

1. What each option can accomplish is not static, but depends on the state of play. If there's an enemy piece that you want to capture, it's quite possible that, in this particular game on this particular turn, the queen is not in position to capture it but a pawn is.
2. Exercising a given option affects your ability to exercise that option in the future. If you're playing aggressively with your queen, there's a good chance your opponent will trap her and take her off the board.
3. Exercising different options in combination is better than repeating the same option over and over. The queen is powerful, but not as powerful as several lesser pieces working in concert.
4. The threat to exercise a given option can affect the game as much as actually exercising it. A well-placed queen can tremendously constrain an opponent's maneuvers, simply because there are so many ways she can punish the opponent for making the wrong move. In many cases, moving her out of that position and sacrificing that implied threat is not as beneficial as keeping her where she is.

What do you think? Have I missed anything? And how would you go about applying these principles to RPG design? D&D has historically made some use of #1 (AoE effects are more or less powerful depending on the position of the monsters) and #2 (Vancian spellcasting, 4E's daily and encounter powers), but I haven't seen much of #3 or #4.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What I'm getting at is, what's the underlying principle of game design that makes pawns and knights and bishops viable in a game that also contains the queen?

What do you think? Have I missed anything?

The most obvious answer is surely - one player controls every type of piece. A 1st level character isn't totally useless in a party with characters of 3rd, 7th and 9th level if one player controls all four. Particularly if the 1st leveller has some unique ability, like an MU's sleep spell or he's the only healer.

In a game where every player controls one PC - ie a typical rpg - the 1st level PC normally isn't viable however.

 

[Dausuul]

The most obvious answer is surely - one player controls every type of piece. A 1st level character isn't totally useless in a party with characters of 3rd, 7th and 9th level if one player controls all four. Particularly if the 1st leveller has some unique ability, like an MU's sleep spell or he's the only healer.

In a game where every player controls one PC - ie a typical rpg - the 1st level PC normally isn't viable however.

Oh, certainly, but I'm thinking on a more granular level - in terms of the options possessed by each PC. A wizard has two first-level spell slots and knows both magic missile and sleep; does she memorize one of each, or two magic missiles, or two sleeps? A 4E fighter has the cleave and sure strike at-will abilities; does he use them both depending on the situation, or does one of them clearly dominate the other?

 

[Votan]

What do you think? Have I missed anything? And how would you go about applying these principles to RPG design? D&D has historically made some use of #1 (AoE effects are more or less powerful depending on the position of the monsters) and #2 (Vancian spellcasting, 4E's daily and encounter powers), but I haven't seen much of #3 or #4.

Very cool ideas and it would work if you had soem sort of team "Chess" game going. However, the pawns would be boring of each player played only one -- imagine ending up opposing another pawn for the rest of the game!

On the the other hand, some games (Ars Magica) have had the idea that a group of warriors equals a mage . . . That might be closer to what you were going for. After all, if you could have one Queen, two rooks or eight pawns that might be tough to decide but not if you could pick just one.

We see this when pawns get promoted -- how often is a pawn not turned into a Queen if the options exists?

 

[Rechan]

Exercising different options in combination is better than repeating the same option over and over. The queen is powerful, but not as powerful as several lesser pieces working in concert.

Also the fact that to Win the Game, it takes more than just the Queen alone; to achieve checkmate, you have to offer no escape. It's rather hard for the Queen to do that alone - and at the very least, something needs to be protecting the Queen.

There's also the simple fact of Distraction. The other pieces allow you the opportunity to lure your opponent into a position. Offer a lesser piece for capture so that you can claim a more powerful piece. Get him to focus on something else (like a pawn moving higher and higher up the board).

 

[Dausuul]

Also the fact that to Win the Game, it takes more than just the Queen alone; to achieve checkmate, you have to offer no escape. It's rather hard for the Queen to do that alone - and at the very least, something needs to be protecting the Queen.

So, this would be sort of an extension of #3: Not only are different options more powerful in concert, but no single option can win the game by itself.

There's also the simple fact of Distraction. The other pieces allow you the opportunity to lure your opponent into a position. Offer a lesser piece for capture so that you can claim a more powerful piece. Get him to focus on something else (like a pawn moving higher and higher up the board).

Very good point. If the system allows for "feints" and "fake-outs" where responding to one tactic draws your opponent out of position to respond to a different tactic, that would be another reason to hold your big guns in reserve.

 

[MarkB]

There's one important factor you left out of your original set of options: Vulnerability.

As powerful as the Queen is, she - like any other piece - can be eliminated in a single move if poorly placed, and once that happens you've lost the power and versatility she represents for the entire remainder of the game. So deploying the Queen without defenses is potentially costly, and deploying those defenses requires moving other pieces.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Moreover, moving her might make other pieces vulnerable.

And, finally, she is not the objective. The king is. You can sacrifice your queen to win the game; you cannot sacrifice the king without losing.

 

[amerigoV]

The Queen is a Glass Cannon.

 

[MarkB]

The Queen is a Glass Cannon.

If viewed as a character, yes.

If viewed as a power, she's one which has some downsides to accompany her utility. Maybe the power leaves the user vulnerable as an aftereffect, or even damages the user directly - or maybe the power remains available only until you try to use it and fail.

4e explores all those options. There are powers which output superior damage but cause the user to grant Combat Advantage, powers which feed upon the user's hit points or surges to gain additional potency, and powers which are only expended when you miss with them.