Autarch Strategy in WotA

I've blogged in the past about strategy from the perspective of the players running the Stronghold.  This post concerns the Autarch strategy in Wrath of the Autarch (what the Autarch player does to win).  Previously, I had developed a system where the Autarch would gain access to various threats based on the year of the campaign.  Basically, for every year of the campaign, the Autarch gained access to more powerful threats of various sorts (Warfare, Diplomacy, Infiltration, and Skirmish).

However, because the Autarch gained access to every sort of threat, there really wasn't any strategy on the part of the Autarch player - just choose the threat type that couldn't be defended.  It also wasn't that fun to be the Stronghold players, because investing in defense in one area just left another area exposed.

The further I get in design, I also have a better vision for what this game is all about.  Wrath of the Autarch is a competitive strategy role-playing game.  While there is a GM of sorts, there is no GM fiat, and the GM/Autarch player is trying to win.  In such a game, it's far more interesting if there are strategies for both the Stronghold players as well as the Autarch player (I may shy away from using the term GM in the book - not sure).  So, I came up with the following.

Threat Pools

The Autarch player allocates points into a set of four threat pools in order to harm the Stronghold in various ways.  There is one pool for each mini-game in WotA (Warfare, Diplomacy, Infiltration, and Skirmish).  Threats have various requirements in terms of threat pool levels, and not surprisingly the mini-game used in that threat is the same as the pool name.

Rather than have the Autarch player secretly track all of these pools, however, I use a method of revealing hidden information that I first saw in War of the Ring: the Autarch player only allocates points into pools when executing a particular threat or when forced to by the Stronghold players (via an Infiltration mission or something similar).

Note that the pools are not expended when a threat is chosen, rather they represent requirements for more powerful threat.  Maybe pools is the wrong word here?  Instead, the number of threats are restricted by current year (each year may only have a number of threats equal to 1/2 the current year) as well as by type (the same threat may not be used more than once a year).

Example

For example, here are some Autarch threats, along with requirements of different types:

Propaganda Campaign (Infiltration)
  Requirement  7:  -1 stability
  Requirement 12: -2 stability
  Requirement 17: -3 stability

Military Strike (Warfare)
  Requirement   9: Standard infantry, archers, and cavalry.
  Requirement 14: Advanced infantry, archers, and cavalry.
  Requirement 17: Elite infantry, archers, cavalry, and catapults.
  Requirement 21: Elite infantry, archers, cavalry, and cannons.

Turn Faction Against Stronghold (Diplomacy)
  Requirement  6:  -1 Disposition
  Requirement 11: -2 Disposition
  Requirement 16: -3 Disposition

Let's say it's the end of the Winter of the second year (8th season), and the Autarch player has not been forced to declare where points are allocated to threat pools.  In that case, during the declare threats phase (end of season) - the Autarch player may either choose to launch a Propaganda Campaign or to Turn Faction Against Stronghold, since both of those have options which require eight or fewer points.

If the Autarch player decides to Turn Faction Against Stronghold, they would be forced to allocate pools as follows:

Infiltration: 0
Warfare: 0
Skirmish: 0
Diplomacy: 6

This is because the Turn Faction Against Stronghold threat requires a Diplomacy Threat pool of at least six.  The Autarch player would also have two points left over.  Now the Stronghold players would know that the Autarch is going to use Diplomacy to bother them, so they better strengthen their relationships with allies!

Continuing with this example, let's fast forward to the Spring of the fourth year (13th season).  Assume the Autarch has the same pools as above, as well as seven points that haven't been allocated.  Five of them could be put into Diplomacy, gaining access to a better Turn Faction Against Stronghold threat, or the Propaganda Campaign could be used, putting seven into Infiltration.  Finally, in two seasons, a military option could be chosen, if the Autarch is comfortable waiting.  The Autarch decides to wait - preferring the flexibility of a future threat to acting now.

However, in the Summer of the fourth year (14 seasons), the Stronghold players decide to Infiltrate the Autarch in order to figure out future plans.  They succeed, and choose as the success condition to force the Autarch player to allocate the eight points which aren't allocated!

The Autarch player decides on:

Infiltration: 0
Warfare: 8
Skirmish: 0
Diplomacy: 6

So, the players know that the Autarch is changing gears, supplementing Diplomacy with naked aggression in the form of military attack!  And they only have one season to prepare!

Strategy

While this method of choosing threats will require tracking four more attributes on the Faction sheet, it makes for a far more interesting game in terms of acting and reacting  to different threats.  The Autarch player has a tension between acting earlier, giving away strategies, and acting later, while keeping options open.  Although, waiting too long will force the Stronghold players' hands, making an Infiltration mission more and more worthwhile, in order to determine what dark intentions the Autarch has in mind.

Sadly, it's going to take some more strategy game testing in order to get these values roughly balanced, but initial sentiment was pretty lukewarm regarding the way Autarch threats were previously handled, and this way will hopefully fix the biggest concerns (essentially, that there was no way to defend against what the Autarch was up to since they could do everything well).

The Wrath of the Autarch - Endgame

Another part of the game that I'm adding in is a "final Autarch threat" - the victor of which wins the game.  The motivation for this is largely to function as a timer.  I'm calling this threat, appropriately enough, The Wrath of the Autarch.

It will be triggered in two ways: when the Autarch's stability is low enough (down to one or less), or when a certain amount of time has elapsed (the Spring of year nine).  The key point is that the Autarch's power will grow significantly over the eight years, such that it greatly behooves the players to force this threat earlier rather than later.  This threat would probably be handled using Skirmish, with the Autarch unleashing a full arsenal of horrible onto the important people of the Stronghold.

I think adding in a narrative reason for this would be fitting (some long term ritual she's a part of, in order to gain power).

Designing Tabletop Strategy RPGs

Wrath of the Autarch is, for lack of any better terms, a tabletop strategy role-playing game.  Or, alternatively, maybe a tabletop 4X RPG is a good descriptor.  Designing such an uncommon beast has proven very difficult, and I'm now aware of why I couldn't find many such games in the first place.  The difficulty comes from merging competition with long time scales.

When initially designing WotA, I looked at many kingdom building RPGs, like Birthright.  However, I quickly realized those games weren't as useful to me as a designer, because they largely don't address long term strategy.  Rather, the kingdom is more of a framing mechanic for the narrative.

The most useful game that I've read is Houses of the Blooded, since it has competition and long term strategy.  Sadly (to me), competitive RPGs are rare enough (Contenders being one of my favorites), but competitive strategy RPGs are basically non-existent, with Houses of the Blooded being the only one I know of.  If you're reading this and know of another one, please let me know!  The big difference between Houses of the Blooded and Wrath of the Autarch is that, instead of the many vs. many PvP as in Houses, WotA has many vs. one (the Autarch) PvP.

The Incompatibility of GM Fiat and Competition

The first, and most immediate way, in which competition makes RPG design very difficult is it necessitates a certain rules framework in which all the players can operate within.  Rather than the traditional RPG design, where the GM is a facilitator to a story, the GM is instead another competitor.  This is easier at a local tactical level - after all, D&D combat in virtually every edition is a competition between the players and the GM, but it gets much harder when that competition is featured at the strategic level.  Put another way, the biggest tool in the RPG toolbox, GM fiat, is now verboten.

I handled this by providing a mission currency for the players (see the previous post), as well as a threat investment structure for the Autarch player (which I'll discuss some other time).  But, the key point is that strategy RPGs can't have a global GM fiat.  This may seem obvious, but the point is certainly worth mentioning, as it becomes readily apparent just how difficult design becomes when that is removed.

Uncertainty of Victory / Winning From Behind

Other design difficulties come from the mixture of strategy and competition, such as maintaining a level of uncertainty (or not) until the completion of the game.  That is, in a long-term strategy RPG, it's best to try to avoid the derivative state where one side or the other knows the game is over, yet it is quite some time before it actually becomes so.

One way to avoid this in games is to decouple the victory condition from the power source.  Otherwise, as you get further behind - you lose any ability to catch up.  I think another method is perhaps to have a few different options for victory, some of them being more unlikely (but perhaps more final) options.  The Hail Mary play as it were.  Note that many computer strategy games don't do this - but it's a little easier to say "Good Game" and move on earlier than it would be in an RPG, where there are narrative considerations as well.

My strategic playtests have revealed that I was guilty of this problem.  In this first place, stability - the measure of stability in your Stronghold, was both a way to build developments (and hence get power) and was also a win condition.  I decided that population is the way to build developments, with stability being a win condition.  All factions (the Stronghold, the Autarch, the five minor factions) are measured by these two metrics.

I'm still working out some Hail Mary victory conditions.  One of which might be assassinating the Autarch, which is no small feat.  I don't have a good option for the GM, but it might be the alternative: showing up with the Autarch somewhere, and trying to force the issue.  This has to be done with care, though, because a grand strategic advantage shouldn't be easily trumped by a long shot move.  Rather, such missions will at least serve to formally end the campaign when one side realizes it's most likely over.  It's more narratively interesting to go out in a blaze of glory than slowly die a thousand cuts over another four or five sessions of play.

Time Scales

Another difficulty of the genre is handling the time scales that a strategy game needs.  The important people from the kingdom are the lens through which the narrative is told, but this must necessarily be abstract in some measure, otherwise too much time is spent on narrowly focused concerns without moving the narrative forward.

In this, there are some good examples in existing RPGs.  The classic Pendragon accomplishes this by only focusing on the very important considerations for the year, not dealing with adventuring minutae.  This is also the tactic that HotB employs.  Birthright is slightly different, and uses both long term moves (kingdom level actions) as well as 2nd Edition D&D style adventures, intermixed.

I chose to employ actions at the level of the season (like HotB), such that each season the narrative progresses.  However, something like this must be done so that the kingdom itself grows.  It's possible to become even more abstract, where players don't role-play characters anymore, but rather narrate the actions of empires.

Winning!

I could write a great deal more about this topic, but I wanted to try to impress upon any other designers of tabletop RPGs the unique challenges present when competition is part of an RPG at the strategic level.  It turns out there is much to learn from boardgames (naturally - since Civilization was first a boardgame) and videogames, although there are challenges in adapting the form into a game where players assume the roles of important characters in the narrative (most notably time scale becomes an issue).  As well, there are difficulties when looking at kingdom building RPGs and making them strategic (most notably the limiting of GM fiat).

Missions in Wrath of the Autarch

Under advice from people smarter than I, I have been playing through the longer term strategy in Wrath of the Autarch, trying to get it humming along.  This takes the form of having a player handle the seasonal details of the Stronghold (building developments, rolling for threats), and then abstracting out the actual missions.  For lack of any better resolution system, I just give a ballpark result, based on what I think would (or should) happen.

Because the player running the Autarch is trying to defeat the players running the Stronghold, it is important for the players running the Stronghold to have some understanding of what options are available and why they would take them.  Unfortunately, the text at this point isn't all that helpful - so this article is the first of a few which summarizes the strategies present in the game.  Hopefully this will serve to crystallize my own understanding of the design, but it will also help players who are going through the strategy game understand their options.

The building blocks of the campaign are missions.  Each season, a few heroes from the Stronghold may undertake one such mission.  Choosing missions carefully is the backbone of any strategy.  Winning!

• Conquest - Conquest missions allow the Stronghold to acquire a neutral region, from a list of available neutral regions.  Only one neutral region may be acquired each year (although the Cartography development grants two regions a year).
• Why do it? Because regions are the lifeblood for resources, and resources are used for many different things.  Almost any strategy is going to require a couple neutral regions.
• Mini-game - All mini-games are used, although most of the time Skirmish is necessary.
• Trade - Set-up a trade deal with one of the five neutral factions.
• Why do it? Successful trade improves disposition with the faction, and a high enough disposition means the faction becomes your ally.  Furthermore, trade helps build developments quicker (the type of development depends on the type of faction), as well as giving access to certain quests for artifacts.
• Mini-game - Diplomacy.
• Espionage - Steal secrets about a development from a faction.
• Why do it? Makes building a particular development much easier.  In a few cases, developments provide a different benefit than build points (such as leverage against the faction in an upcoming Trade, or military advantages).
• Mini-game - Infiltration
• Sabotage - Destroy a development within a faction.
• Why do it? The biggest benefit is usually a stability hit for the target faction.  If stability drops enough, the faction is no longer around - in the case of the Autarch, that's the victory condition!  In addition, a few developments provide other benefits, like neutralizing military advantages.
• Mini-game - Infiltration
• Military - Attack a region that a faction controls.
• Why do it? To steal the resources a faction has, and lower their stability and population in the process.  To do this mission, the Stronghold really needs to be committed to a solid Military strategy, supplemented by many developments.
• Mini-game - Warfare
• Assassination - Take out the leader of an opposing faction.
• Why do it? The stability of the target faction will most likely drop (sometimes by a lot if it's an influential leader).  Furthermore, getting rid of leaders can render a faction weak in a particular area (such as killing a military leader).
• Mini-game - Infiltration
• Quest - Gain a powerful artifact.
• Why do it?  It's hard to gain access to quests, since it requires an allied faction.  Once one becomes available, it's usually worthwhile to grab it, since it can be the capstone of a particular long term strategy.
• Mini-game - All mini-games, although Skirmish is mainly used.
• Threats - Threats are all the bad things that happen in regions, with factions, and from the Autarch.

Fortex+ (Looking Deeper into Alternative Fate Dice Distributions)

After hearing some gripes from players in my WotA group about Fate dice, I've been interested in exploring the pros and cons of various alternatives.  I'm particularly interested in the following features:

• No re-rolls.  This is in an attempt to place all the tension at the moment of the roll itself, rather than a negotiation afterward.  I'm also not a huge fan of the re-roll option in Fate - it's sort of another hoop to jump through.
• Player driven compels.  One thing I like about Cortex+ is the simplicity of player driven compels, where there is a mechanism for players to generate their own currency (fate points, plot points, etc).  I'm not against GM-driven compels, but I *really* like a mechanism for players to bring in currency without the GM's guidance.  The way I handled that in WotA was just to let players take a Fate point anytime they could narrate how an aspect they had caused problems on a failed roll.

Anyway, I was interested in exploring the d6 - d6 distribution for Fate, and then extending that to rolling a set of dice, taking the highest rolled, along with rolling a set of dice, and subtracting the lowest rolled.

• Start with d6 - d6.
• Spend a Fate point to:
• Step up a die in the first pool, or add a new d6 to the pool.  For instance, with two fate points, you could roll d10 - d6 (incrementing d6 to d8, then to d10).  Or you could roll 3d6 (taking the highest) - d6.
• Add a d6 to the second pool, taking the lowest of the results.  So, with two fate points, you could roll 2d6 (taking the highest) - 2d6 (taking the lowest).
• Rolling d4 - d6 counts as a compel, granting a Fate point.  Of course, an aspect is needed for this, and it must make narrative sense.

This system does fulfill the no re-rolls and player driven compels features.  However, it also compromises much of the player agency that Fate provides.  Anyway, it was interesting to explore the probabilities of such a system.

The first metric to look at is expected value.  For expected value, the best way to use Fate points is just to bump the first dice up.  Adding extra dice doesn't help expected value as much.  In the last entries below, the parentheses indicate rolling a set of dice and taking the highest (if before the subtraction) or the lowest (if after).  As can be seen from expected values, a Fate point in this system is worth much less than in regular Fate (it's roughly +1 instead of +2).

• d6 - d6 : 0
• d8 - d6: +1
• d10 - d6: +2
• d12 - d6: +3.0
• d12 - (d6, d6): +3.97
• (d6, d12) - (d6, d6): +4.46

That said, expected value is only one way to look at probability.  It doesn't take into account the distribution of results.  For that, rolling a set of dice and taking the highest naturally makes the lowest results even less likely, while simultaneously making the highest results less likely (or impossible).  For instance, the graph at right shows cumulative probability density functions for when three Fate points are available.  In that case, the first dice can be bumped up three times from a d6 to a d12, or two extra dice could be added to the first pool (taking the highest) and one to the last pool (taking the lowest).  Thus, if you really need to get above a two, more than you care about rolling really high, it's better to go the pool route.  Because rolling a -5, -4, or -3 is very unlikely.

So, there are some real trade-offs in this approach, and risk can be involved.  Interestingly, if the pools are removed and traditional Fate re-rolls are used with the stepped up dice (d8 - d6, etc), it's worth a re-roll if the expected value or less is rolled.  So, if a +2 is rolled on d10 - d6, it merits a re-roll.  This is another possibility that could be interesting: allow re-rolls, but the first dice must be stepped up and locked down before any re-rolls take place.

Anyway, after thinking about how this might work in WotA, I think I'm going to stick with the standard Fate model.  However, I am considering using d6 - d6 for Fate rolls and allowing certain Stronghold developments to bump up the first dice.  There's something very visceral about rolling d12 - d6 and nailing a +11.  But I would keep Fate points the same (add +2 or allow a re-roll).

WotA Playtesting During Origins

So, I got in a number of playtests of Wrath of the Autarch during Origins.  Weirdly, they were all of the Infiltration mini-game, probably because it has an element of finality to it that the other mini-games don't.

Anyway, I don't have any huge revelations or overhauls (probably a good thing), but I did think of some minor changes both during play and afterward.

• Use spatial maps for Infiltration.  This isn't required, but it does make it fun.  The only issue is that the default mode is that any zone can be reached from any zone, and that's not always true when you bring in a map.  Have to think if that will make it too hard.
• For casting spells in the narrative scene, the first mana spent should just fuel the spell (and not also act as a fate point).  It's good enough to use Spellcraft for a power.
• Use compels to add new obstacles related to the players aspects.  I did this a lot to great effect - need to make sure it's spelled out clearly as an option.
• Limit the narrative phase to three rounds, instead of four.  Four was a little too long, and that needs to be as quick as possible.  Luck could really sham the players occasionally, but as it stands now I think it's a little too easy.
• Need to make sure there are a good variety of outcomes for Infiltration missions on the strategic game, particularly for things like assassination.  I'm guessing assassination could already be covered as just a way to sabotage certain developments, but this needs to be spelled out.

Other thoughts, outside of that, revolved mostly around trade missions and the overall strategic game.  I've simplified trade a little, but I may need to go further.

I have some other thoughts on what I'm going to do with the document going forward, but I'll save those.  For this week, I think I'll add in those tweaks, and maybe work to completely finish the Autarch chapter.  That will give me a good template for all the other factions.

Fate and Mass Battles

So, yesterday was the first real playtest of the Warfare mini-game in Wrath of the Autarch.  It went about how all the other mini-games went when I first played them: a mixed bag.  In this mission, the players mustered their (pretty crappy) troops to withstand an attack from a limited strength Autarch force.

I went for a more Diaspora-like model of platoon combat as my basis, rather than something like the abstract model that Legends of Anglerre has.  My desire was to fight out units moving around zones, rather than having whole armies roll against each other.  There are many ways to do it, but that level of detail fits better with the rest of the missions already in place.

The narrative phase went well - but no rules have changed there for quite some time.  There were some cool scenes involving leaders from Bavin's Hollow (the Stronghold the players have created) pleading with some local farmers to get out of the path of the oncoming Imperial army.  I compelled one of the players to play to her character's nature and contradict what the other heroes were trying to do.

The Warfare mini-game, though, was a little slow and involved.  I think the mustering the troops went fine (that was pretty easy), and I had drawn out the zone map ahead of time.  But, there were a few issues that I've thought about this evening, and hopefully can resolve before the next playtest of this mini-game.

• The map was too big.  I had too many zones on the map, it was about 8 X 6 (in zones).  Of course, zones aren't grids, but that's still roughly how it was shaped.  That was too many zones.  The units moved too slow, and there was too much down time before it really clashed.  You need more zones than Skirmish (which only has four or five or so), but that was too many.
• A few of the players felt like their heroes didn't have enough options.  In particular, they wanted their bad-ass fighter heroes to be able to do bad-ass fighty stuff.  As it stood now - leaders (commanders of units), could Create an Advantage (makes aspects), Overcome Obstacles (remove them - or get around various static obstacles), or redeploy units under their command.
• Looking back, we weren't creative enough in the creation of aspects.  For instance, it's feasible a warrior could create an aspect which would demoralize an opposing unit simply by wading in and attacking.
• The players were interested in having the ability to attack a leader of the opposing force.  I'm not against this - so I'll probably put it in the rules.
• Too much Create an Advantage can slow things down.  This is sort of a byproduct of the previous issue.  The other mini-games have more options for the characters.  Most of them have a choice of Attack/Create an Advantage/Overcome Obstacle.  Because attack was gone (at least as it pertains to leaders) - that made it drag.
• I'm not sold on rolling for movement.  In Diaspora, each platoon rolls for movement.  In Fate as well, during Conflicts.  For this mini-game, though, it didn't seem to matter much.  It seems like a roll means you can spend Fate points.  But it felt like a lot of rolling for not that much benefit.  I'm thinking of just saying a leader and commanded units can move some base amount - depending on the slowest unit they command.

Those were the main issues.  That battle of itself, which I thought was going to be *very* lopsided, was closer than I anticipated.  The heroes, although they just had poorly trained militia on their side, also had some pretty serious spell power (it's one of their main focuses), and that helped tremendously.

So, it was interesting to see in action, but I have some work to do to make it come together a little better.

Storygames and Metagaming

So, this semi-rant can safely be filed under pedantry.  I've read a few people recently mention they don't like RPGs with lots of metagame decisions, then they mention games like Fiasco.  I've seen this enough that it seems common, but it doesn't really jive with my understanding of the term.

A metagame decision, as I understand it, are the concerns outside the structure of the rules.  An example consisting of something like watching the clock during your D&D game, knowing that the GM has to wrap up the scenario soon, so it's a good idea to blow all your cool spells now.  Or taking it easy on whoever brought the beer that night.

However, talking about scene currency in Fiasco isn't a metagame decision, since it's part of the rules structure.  I guess a metagame decision might be avoiding certain types of scenes based on the comfort level of the players, or something to that effect.

Anyway, this falls back to probably a larger issue in that communication about RPGs is a messy thing.  I guess communication is itself messy, so it's not surprise we can't talk about RPGs very well.  But I think gamers have a variety of terms we love to use, but rarely agree on: crunchy, fluffy, gamist, story game, indie game, simulationist, metagame, simple, complex, railroad, sandbox, old school, new school, munchkin, power gamer, etc.  If nothing else, it provides for conversation.