"Rules vs. Stats" Topic
27 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Current Poll
|
etotheipi | 16 Oct 2014 5:30 p.m. PST |
Not wanting to go into my entire diatribe about the taxonomy of the parts of a wargame and why it is important to give different names to fundamentally different things (though which name goes with what is arbitrary), is there any interest in putting effort into making a distinction between "rules" in a game and "stats" for forces in the game? From my viewpoint, I always considered rules to cover the dynamics of a game … how things change over time (including how time itself is marked), and how things interact with each other. F'r'ex, the Judo skill pits the user's DEX against the target's STR, resulting in a roll modified by those values and an outcome based on the roll. That would be a rule. Stats are quantities (and in very, very rare cases qualities (often we use labels like "strong" and "weak" and think they are qualitative, but then we treat them as surrogate ordinal values rather than categories or qualities)) that define an entity's (unit, figure, terrain piece, environmental effect) degree of impact within the rules. F'r'ex your elf's DEX is 18; my orc's STR is 17. Those are stats. A standard, would be a grouping of ranges of stats for like things. F'r'ex, orcs have a STR from 14-19 and an INT from 6-10. They're different than rules, because instead of defining the dynamics of the game, they define the parameters of the game. Anywho, we are in the habit of calling all of the above things "rules", possibly because they come in something we conventionally call a rulebook. I think a lot of the confusion we have in talking about (and developing) games comes from conflating fundamentally different things, making consensus difficult. Well, glad to get that off my chest … Sancho?? tráeme mi lanza! |
JonFreitag | 16 Oct 2014 6:51 p.m. PST |
Rules vs Stats: The distinction is clear to me although I might refer to what you term as "stats" as "parameter values." You are not the only one will a taxonomy diatribe. |
BrotherSevej | 16 Oct 2014 7:03 p.m. PST |
I'm more concerned about dynamics vs rules though. Many designer make up rules, but only think about the dynamics later. |
Neroon | 16 Oct 2014 7:14 p.m. PST |
Stats define capabilities. Rules define how these capabilities interact. |
etotheipi | 17 Oct 2014 2:46 a.m. PST |
I'm more concerned about dynamics vs rules though. Many designer make up rules, but only think about the dynamics later. I agree, but I would say that only the things with dynamics in them are rules. The other parts that fulfill different functions are different things. I think the core issue is that different techniques are needed for managing different things like, say rules and stats. And different mindsets are needed to develop them. I think we hodge-podge it together too much. I might refer to what you term as "stats" as "parameter values." I don't particularly like "stats", either. I am not wedded to any nomenclature, but try to find words that will most closely evoke the right mindset in the reader. I think that makes aligning the details easier. But, yeah, I have somewhat of a background in statistics, and the parameter values are not statistics. You are not the only one will a taxonomy diatribe. Gland to have company. Here's your lance… :) |
(Phil Dutre) | 17 Oct 2014 3:10 a.m. PST |
It's a continuum. Are the ways in which chess pieces move on a chessboard rules or stats? Is the text on a Magic The Gathering card a rule or a stat? Etc. I guess rules become stats when it's too much work to list them in the rulebook and it makes more sense to talk about them in general terms. If every playing piece is unique, then its abilities are better described as "stats". If all playing pieces are the same, then you can better describe their abilities as "rules". |
etotheipi | 17 Oct 2014 5:01 a.m. PST |
Are the ways in which chess pieces move on a chessboard rules or stats? The way I have chosen the terms above, they are rules. Movement is a change in state, which is a dynamic. Moreover, there is no calculus of aggregation for moves in Chess, so they are not quantitaitve or qualitative. (You can certainly invent a calculs of aggregation for chess moves, based on some specific way of expressing them, however that calculus is not part of the performance space of Chess. I.E., you can come up with a way to enumerate and add "move forward one" to "move any distance diagonal unless blocked", but the resultant answer has no meaning for playing Chess.) Is the text on a Magic The Gathering card a rule or a stat? The vast majority of them that I have seen contain both rules and stats. Always multiple stats and often multiple rules. I don't have any issue with mixing rules, stats, or other components of a wargame together in presentation. But when we discuss how wargames work (such as the topic of this forum), I think it is important not to conflate different thigns that need to be treated differently. I guess rules become stats when it's too much work to list them in the rulebook and it makes more sense to talk about them in general terms. I'm not sure what this distinction means. Could you elaborate? |
(Phil Dutre) | 17 Oct 2014 5:18 a.m. PST |
The point I am trying to make there is no fundamental difference between rules and stats. They are just a convenient way for organizing and writing down how a game should be played. I mentioned chess before. One could as well write the rules for chess as (yes, I am simplifying here): "A piece can move in any direction any distance untill blocked. The possible directions and maximum distances are given by each piece's stats.", and then go on as: Pawn: forward (1) Rook: forward (7), sideways (7) King: all directions (1) Etc… A Knight would have a special ability :-) I am not saying this is the most convenient way to describe chess, because the game does not allow other variations (e.g. diagonal(4)), but that is more because chess has fossilized into a standard set of rules which have not been changed over the past 200 years or so … BTW, using stats does not mean any numerical value is a possibility. There are often assumptions what range of numbers are allowable in the gaming engine. If you look at wargaming rules from the Featherstone era, units also do not have stats. But there are rules, that say: - infantry moves 6 - cavalry moves 12 - infantry rolls 1 die per figure - grenadiers roll 2 dice per figure etc… You could as well write these rules as stats, but the stat format would be an overkill, because there is not enough variation in the stats between different type of units. Hence, my remark about the variation in unit types. The abilities of armies in Risk are not describe by stats. But if you would have 20 different types of armies in Risk, a stat format might be a better way to characterize the variations between troop types. IIRC, stats were introduced by fantasy wargaming, because in fantasy wargaming, there was a bigger need to differentiate between troop types. In historicals, you might have infantry and hvy infantry, but in fantasy, one wants subtle differences between humans, orks, skeletons, goblins etc… So, in essence, I think it has much more to do with presentation rather than an inherent modeling problem. |
(Phil Dutre) | 17 Oct 2014 5:22 a.m. PST |
Another analogy, mathematics: I could say: 1 maps to 1 2 maps to 4 3 maps to 9 4 maps to 16 Or I could say: x maps to x*x, x has to be integer between 1 and 4 Same thing, different presentation. If the the possible cases (numbers in this case) are limited to a handful, I might prefer the first format. If the possible range is larger, I might prefer the second. |
Extra Crispy | 17 Oct 2014 6:12 a.m. PST |
Interesting – I don't think I've ever seen a thread or read a rulebook that confused these two. People often do say "In rule set XYZ.." and then go on to talk about stats. But in my mind that doesn't mean they think stats are rules. |
OSchmidt | 17 Oct 2014 6:20 a.m. PST |
There's no difference. Stats are rules. A stat which says a specific object's (whatever it is, man, tank, spell, ) hits if the die roll is above or below a certain number, or hits 50% of the time, or has to roll a 4,5,6 is identical to "draw a chit for activation, or All French are +2, or first comes movement then fire or Igougo. All war games are made up of objects and procedures, or the mere artifact concerned with (the object on the table top) and the procedures and method of operation of that object on the table top. That's it. . |
Dynaman8789 | 17 Oct 2014 7:39 a.m. PST |
Stats and rules should be separate. Otherwise you get special rules for X in force books and I HATE that. Hate it even worse when two units can do pretty much the exact same thing but have different rules for how to do it. (the talk about FOW and US tank destroyers comes to mind). I'm a computer programmer by trade, I've seen so many hard coded (stats in the rules…) programs it makes me want to pull my hair out. I have a similar dislike for it in rules sets. |
etotheipi | 17 Oct 2014 8:15 a.m. PST |
One could as well write the rules for chess You did simplify and it does make a difference. You certainly could abstract the rules to a generic move order (I have done this in LISP), but it would have so many conditions as to render it unintelligible as a single thing. You would need stuff like "If your piece is a pawn, then … OR If your piece is a rook, then … ". What you are doing is creating a run-on sentence, or in this case a run-on rule. Even so, the hodge-podge run-on rule is sill a fundamentally different thing than the stats. Changing the rule has a different effect than changing the stats, and uses different processes. x maps to x*x, x has to be integer between 1 and 4
And Mathematics makes the same distinction between operands and operators that I am making between rules and stats. In Mathematics, I have the same type of mutability where I can change the operations, which necessitates changing the operand space to maintain the integrity of the meta-system. But that doesn't change the fact that there are still operands and operators. If I asked you for a function and you said, "7", well, that is not a function. Oho! It is a constant function. Well, no it isn't. y=7 (or x=7, or t'=7) is a constant function. And we can't use the same rules of inference on a function as we can on a number, and vice-versa. All war games are made up of objects and procedures Which is exactly my point. Objects and procedures are different things; you even distinguish them. I'm a computer programmer by trade, I've seen so many hard coded (stats in the rules…) programs it makes me want to pull my hair out. Me, too. And I think we cause a lot of the heartache we have in wargames by treating rules as stats and vice-versa. Just like a computer program, there are an infinite number of isomorphs you can use to express the idea of a wargame. But that doesn't mean they don't have a common ontological and epistemological root. You could as well write these rules as stats, but the stat format would be an overkill, because there is not enough variation in the stats between different type of units. Those are stats. There is no information contained about how to move or when to roll and what to do next. In fact, your cavalry and infantry probably have different ways to use the move distance to implement the move action. Where this becomes an issue is where, as Dynaman8789 hints, you have a specific movement rule in the general rules, then hide a cavalry movement rule in with the cavalry stats. Or worse, the army stats for a specific cavalry type. It becomes more problematic when the rule part of the special cavalry movement takes a different form (or even comes from a different taxonomic implementation of rules) than the general movement rule. |
(Phil Dutre) | 17 Oct 2014 8:36 a.m. PST |
Don't get me wrong – I have nothing against stats as such, I just don't tend to see them as something "seperate" from the rules. For me, stats are an integral part of the rules, only formulated in a distinct manner. I do agree that stats might make a specific gaming engine more elegant, or easier to handle, or easier to read or learn. But, it also works the other way around. Sometimes the use of stats complicates the gaming engine, if there is not enough variation the use of a stat. E.g. (again a simplification ;-), you might say: "All figures have to roll on a D6, higher or equal to their attack value", and then list that attack value as a stat for each troop type. This makes sense if almost every single troop type has its own distinct attack value. But, suppose that everyone except orcs (to use fantasy as an example), and skeletons have a different attack value, and everyone else has the same value. Then you might have a rule that says: "All figures roll a D6 to attack, and 4+ scores a hit. However, orcs score on a 3+, and skeletons score on a 5+". In the latter case, you have a general rule, but with 2 exceptions. This case might be easier to handle for players, since they won't have to look up the attack value for every single troop type. Something inbetween might be: "All figures roll a D6 to hit, and roll equal or higher than their attack number. Attack numbers are: - Orcs: 3 - Skeletons: 5 - Everyone else: 4" Sometimes stats are the better solutions, sometimes rules, and you can switch back and forth between both types of formulations in most cases. |
Dynaman8789 | 17 Oct 2014 9:44 a.m. PST |
Phil – good example of why stats are almost always better. Say you come up with a new supplement to the game you mention, it has Dragons that hit on a 2 – you either have to go back and rewrite the rules or just put in a new stat line for Dragons. Writing the rules as "Most figures need a 4+ to hit, see unit stats for exceptions" is fine as well. |
etotheipi | 17 Oct 2014 10:41 a.m. PST |
I wouldn't say that stats are better, but understanding the difference between the dynamics for the game and the specifics for the units is important. Adding a new unit type would be best done with the stats. Adding a rule for firing into cover would be best done with the rule. What you don't want to end up with is a set of rules that were modified a couple of times using inappropriate techniques and then retro-corrected to eliminate unwanted effects. |
vtsaogames | 17 Oct 2014 11:11 a.m. PST |
Adding a new unit type is best done with specific new rules and an expensive new booklet. |
Last Hussar | 18 Oct 2014 12:22 p.m. PST |
Stats are the Variables in the Programme of the Rules. |
McLaddie | 19 Oct 2014 3:11 p.m. PST |
And I think we cause a lot of the heartache we have in wargames by treating rules as stats and vice-versa. Can you give some examples of that heartache? I'm not sure what you mean by that? Stats are the Variables in the Programme of the Rules. That seems clear to me. The rules create the game environment, the statistics references the 'qualities' of particular objects/units placed in the environment. Regardless of the qualities/quantitites given in the stats, the same rules will be in operation overall and in relation to any stat with a particular number or quality. |
etotheipi | 19 Oct 2014 7:02 p.m. PST |
Can you give some examples of that heartache? There are dozens of rules where new units are introduced along with specialty rules even though the current rules with different statistics are sufficient to provide the specified effect. Likewise, there are dozens of rules with large sets of alternate rules for the same action that could be compressed into a smaller, simpler rule with variance in stats. |
McLaddie | 20 Oct 2014 6:59 a.m. PST |
There are dozens of rules where new units are introduced along with specialty rules even though the current rules with different statistics are sufficient to provide the specified effect.Likewise, there are dozens of rules with large sets of alternate rules for the same action that could be compressed into a smaller, simpler rule with variance in stats. Thanks. Heartache indeed. I seems to me that regardless of how you defined rules and stats, you'd have some folks doing the above anyway… |
etotheipi | 20 Oct 2014 2:28 p.m. PST |
I agree that any type of standardization can only go so far. But it's not about defining the terms (I have no particular affinity for any specific terms), its about recognizing that there are important type distinctions in the semantic space of what we generalize into the term "rules". I think there are a couple other important distinctions besides the "big two" that really help manage things well. |
(Phil Dutre) | 21 Oct 2014 2:03 a.m. PST |
Would you call "army lists" rules? That's a much bigger issue in my view than the difference between stats and rules. New rulesets these days are often also judged on how you compose or build an army/warband/troupe/… |
etotheipi | 21 Oct 2014 2:32 p.m. PST |
Army lists, generally, don't define how things change inthe game. Using the definitions above, I would say that (pure) army lists were information constructs built on stats. Often, they have rules mixed (specific dynamics that don't apply to other armies). They might also have information constructs based on "orders", which are one of the other types I mentioned above that I consider to be fundamentally different that rules or stats. Orders being relationships amoung rules (dynamics, things you can do that change the state of the battle), units (entities in the game), and time (which can be specific or relative). I have no problem with presenting these things together. But when we design, playtest, and analyze the games, we need to treat the pieces as pieces. F'r'ex, WRT army lists, if we add an actual rule to the game we need to vet it across all the rest of the rules and understand how it interacts in the total (or at least general) context of the game, not just think about it within the bounds of our intent for it (i.e., the specific army it applies to the way we expect to see it on the table). |
(Phil Dutre) | 22 Oct 2014 2:28 a.m. PST |
But when we design, playtest, and analyze the games, we need to treat the pieces as pieces. I tend to agree, but that's not how most rules work in practice. Rules cannot work without some assumption about the numerical range of stats and their frequency, and very often, army lists define the balance of the game rather than the rules. Without army lists, some rulesets are unplayable, because the army lists contain a lot of the basic assumptions and framework that the rules have to work in. Can you have a 1000th level fighter in D&D? Sure, but the rules are not designed to do that … |
(Phil Dutre) | 22 Oct 2014 2:30 a.m. PST |
W.r.t. army lists: I *do* think that shifting rules from 'Rules' to 'Army Lists' makes for a poorer game design – but you see this happening in many commercial games. BTW, any game which has its focus on army lists or warband construction, is a big turn-off for me ;-) |
etotheipi | 22 Oct 2014 3:28 a.m. PST |
Rules cannot work without some assumption about the numerical range of stats and their frequency, and very often, army lists define the balance of the game rather than the rules. Ah, now that's a difference between you and me. I tend to work the dynamics first and understand the shape (transfer function) for how things trade off in the game. Once I get that pretty solid, then I work on stats or force building constraints to get the specific entities I want in the game. Writing QILS scenarios is pretty much coming up with the situational aspects of the environment (something I consider an important thing) for all the engagements and then fitting stats into it (die designs) that give representative forces, usually selecting from ones I have used in the past. |
|