tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post1983578144575984386..comments2024-03-24T00:19:48.310-07:00Comments on Delta Vector: Game Design #41: Reactions Again - Types of ReactionevilleMonkeighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-73472310888444067272015-04-17T09:12:29.429-07:002015-04-17T09:12:29.429-07:00Ah, I think I get you now. If I was to put it int...Ah, I think I get you now. If I was to put it into questions, it'd be something like:<br /><br />When should a unit react? (for that genre/background)<br />How powerful should a reaction be? (to keep it balanced)<br />What actions should trigger what reactions? (for that genre/background)<br /><br />That's probably fuel for another, broader topic - this one was just breaking off one of the subheadings from the first post which isn't well explored in any rules I know of, and giving an example of what it might look like in a game, and why you might use it.evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-64109239027580641962015-04-17T09:00:54.077-07:002015-04-17T09:00:54.077-07:00I like the idea of ADDING more choices. The proble...I like the idea of ADDING more choices. The problem is if reactions become restrictive and proscriptive, and remove decision points from the player. A bit like some 2HW games - after units move into contact, the dice, not the player, tend to determine the gameplay. That's automating things too much.<br /><br />Adding a extra reactions as a special rule makes sense, as much as restricting units (i.e. skirmisher default to falling back from melee contact.)evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-39204342292607681572015-04-17T07:20:18.693-07:002015-04-17T07:20:18.693-07:00Involuntary reactions might include one player som...Involuntary reactions might include one player somehow narrowing the range of reactions available to their opponent, all the way to no choice at all, to challenging them to spend their existing options unwisely. <br /><br />Which is where context comes in. Context in terms of fluff would dictate expectations of whether a unit can or should react to an opponent's actions. Context in terms of mechanical operations might mean that all reaction options available to a player are not only live options, but balanced options. Context in terms of how it moves the game forward might mean that a reaction, or potential reaction, would affect an opponent's decision to acts such that where Action A might precipitate Reactions B, C, and/or D. <br /><br />Put another way, it might have been something to start with the broader context of what decisions you want players to make, in what order, and in what ways that help them make narrative sense of the game. Then narrow it down to managing expectations by dressing up reactions in the proper semantic model (trained vs untrained, natural vs unnatural, prepared/unprepared) so that the game moves along at a good clip, and the players don't stop to comment on any weird artifacts of the game's design. Nurglitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03333941626425462180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-41757104989385521842015-04-17T06:26:01.860-07:002015-04-17T06:26:01.860-07:00You could also have better trained troops that sim...You could also have better trained troops that simply react better (with more freedom, decision, or like you say, aggression) than the rank and file. This way players know which enemy troops can use aggressive reactions and which cannot. This could create a lot of emergent play, specially in maneuvering and choosing your skirmishes with more care (or planning).Doguihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03701853143751982447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-8007656043055141012015-04-16T14:24:33.683-07:002015-04-16T14:24:33.683-07:00"I think the concept would have been better h..."I think the concept would have been better handled in the context of, well, context. Like the frequency and amount of reactions would differ with kinds of reactions, and the kind would vary with the expectations laid out by other parts of the game and the fluff that it represents. How do the reactions move the game forward? How do they fit into the interaction between the players, and what do they do to improve that interaction? "<br /><br />I'm not actually sure what you're saying here.... can you give an example of what you mean for each?<br /><br />All the post addresses is that reactions can be "toned down" by dividing them into reactions that severely disrupt opponents (and limiting them) and natural reactions a unit might take in self defence (and allowing these to be freely used.) I.e. having limited and unlimited reactions within a single game - something I don't see done often, if at all.<br /><br />"Plus I think you should have addressed both voluntary and involuntary actions. "<br /><br />The involuntary "units recoil when they lose melee" or "units flee when they take 50% casualties from melee" and various morale-related reactions has been around as long as wargaming has, and I wouldn't class them as being part of a modern "reaction system" per se, which is what I'm interested in.<br /><br />If you're talking about a 2HW style roll where the reaction roll dictates to you what you must do, that's a system I dislike. By trying to reduce the player to a bystander we remove "decision points" instead of adding them. You might as well revert to IGOUGO and at least have the game play faster. evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-48826663754477199702015-04-16T10:00:51.190-07:002015-04-16T10:00:51.190-07:00I think the concept would have been better handled...I think the concept would have been better handled in the context of, well, context. Like the frequency and amount of reactions would differ with kinds of reactions, and the kind would vary with the expectations laid out by other parts of the game and the fluff that it represents. How do the reactions move the game forward? How do they fit into the interaction between the players, and what do they do to improve that interaction? Plus I think you should have addressed both voluntary and involuntary actions. Nurglitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03333941626425462180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-46010257611196380042015-04-15T22:32:04.992-07:002015-04-15T22:32:04.992-07:00It could be trained/untrained, reactive/proactive ...It could be trained/untrained, reactive/proactive or whatever. It's just semantics.<br /> <br />Did I get the concept across clearly enough, though?evilleMonkeighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998198938697175335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394074963215462822.post-29509677887538572742015-04-15T16:58:53.441-07:002015-04-15T16:58:53.441-07:00Rather than 'natural/unnatural' you might ...Rather than 'natural/unnatural' you might consider 'trained/untrained' as the point of training is to make certain reactions and reflexes instinctive, or 'natural.' Nurglitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03333941626425462180noreply@blogger.com