Warning: Use of undefined constant CONCATENATE_SCRIPTS - assumed 'CONCATENATE_SCRIPTS' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-config.php on line 98

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-config.php:98) in /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1648

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-config.php:98) in /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1648

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-config.php:98) in /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1648

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-config.php:98) in /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1648

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-config.php:98) in /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1648

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-config.php:98) in /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1648

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-config.php:98) in /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1648

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-config.php:98) in /home/finisgeekis/www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1648
{"id":22454,"date":"2020-11-25T11:53:53","date_gmt":"2020-11-25T14:53:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/?p=22454"},"modified":"2020-11-25T15:46:19","modified_gmt":"2020-11-25T18:46:19","slug":"os-triunfos-de-tarlac-dev-diary-2-a-dura-tarefa-de-inventar-objetivos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/2020\/11\/25\/os-triunfos-de-tarlac-dev-diary-2-a-dura-tarefa-de-inventar-objetivos\/","title":{"rendered":"“Os Triunfos de Tarlac” dev diary #2: a dura tarefa de inventar objetivos"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Esse post \u00e9 parte de uma s\u00e9rie. Para ler os artigos anteriores, clique aqui<\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n

Imagem destacada: C\u00e1lice de Ardagh, da cole\u00e7\u00e3o do Museu Nacional da Irlanda<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em>Este artefato medieval foi a inspira\u00e7\u00e3o da ta\u00e7a Sam Maguire<\/a>, entregue atualmente ao vencedor do campeonato s\u00eanior de futebol ga\u00e9lico<\/a> da Irlanda. Foto de Rihani<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Jogos n\u00e3o s\u00e3o feitos apenas de regras, miniaturas impressionantes ou tabuleiros com artes chamativas. Embora existam muitas defini\u00e7\u00f5es do que seja um \u201cgame\u201d \u2013 para Sid Meier<\/a> de Civilization<\/em>, ele seria nada al\u00e9m de uma \u201cs\u00e9rie de decis\u00f5es interessante\u201d \u2013 muitas delas incluem dois pontos fundamentais: meios de se ganhar <\/strong>\u2013 e\/ou, de se perder<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Condi\u00e7\u00f5es de vit\u00f3ria e de derrota podem parecer coisas triviais. Do ponto de vista do design de games, por\u00e9m, elas s\u00e3o tudo menos isso. O desafio \u00e9 dobrado em jogos hist\u00f3ricos, que precisam equilibrar o imperativo de divertir com objetivos que fariam sentido aos povos do passado.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Como o historiador Robert Houghton<\/a>\u00a0certa vez apontou, \u00e9 justamente a\u00ed que muitos games comerciais pisam na bola.<\/p>\n

Todos aqui conhecemos exemplos de jogos que representam com esmero as sociedades de outrora, mas permitem que jogadores ajam como nenhuma personagem hist\u00f3ria se comportaria.<\/p>\n

Como eu pr\u00f3pr\u00edo escrevi em outro artigo, muitos jogos de estrat\u00e9gia obedecem \u00e0 f\u00f3rmula 4X <\/em>(ex<\/strong>plorar, ex<\/strong>pandir, ex<\/strong>trair, ex<\/strong>terminar). \u201cGanhar\u201d, nesses jogos, esta intimamente relacionado a crescer. <\/strong>Muitas vezes, por cima de jogadores ou NPCs mais fracos.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Isso at\u00e9 bate com a ideologia de certos imp\u00e9rios nos s\u00e9culos XIX e XX. Por\u00e9m, n\u00e3o pode de maneira alguma ser tomado como uma regra geral para toda a hist\u00f3ria humana.<\/p>\n

O pr\u00f3prio ato de anexar territ\u00f3rio indiscriminadamente, que esses games tratam como natural, dependia de uma imensa log\u00edstica, organiza\u00e7\u00e3o militar e vontade pol\u00edtica que a maioria dos l\u00edderes do passado n\u00e3o tinha \u2013 e sequer tinham a inten\u00e7\u00e3o de ter.<\/p>\n

Na \u00e9poca em que se passa Os Triunfos de Tarlac, <\/em>por exemplo (anos 1276 a 1318), reis irlandeses governavam prov\u00edncias min\u00fasculas para os padr\u00f5es contempor\u00e2neos. Thomond, onde se passa o jogo, mal contava com 3,5 mil km2<\/sup>\u00a0 de \u00e1rea territorial (Sergipe, o menor estado brasileiro, possu\u00ed 21,9 mil km2,<\/sup> mais de 6 vezes mais).<\/p>\n

Esses governantes contavam com ex\u00e9rcitos compostos de poucas centanas de homens, quando muito. Destes, o grosso vinha das contribui\u00e7\u00f5es de seus vassalos, que podiam simplesmente se voltar contra o pr\u00f3prio rei se ele tomasse decis\u00f5es que os desagradassem. Reinos como esse n\u00e3o tinham condi\u00e7\u00f5es de se envolver em guerras que durassem mais do que alguns meses. Muito menos de expandir indiscriminadamente, absorvendo mais vassalos insubordinados \u2013 e, com eles, ainda mais problemas.<\/p>\n

\u201cGovernar\u201d, nesse contexto, era menos uma quest\u00e3o de conquista e supremacia que de achar um equil\u00edbrio entre exig\u00eancias que seus s\u00faditos estavam dispostos a oferecer e os recursos necess\u00e1rios para dissuadir seus rivais \u00e0 rebeli\u00e3o.<\/p>\n

Pior: essa modalidade de guerra de baixa intensidade quase nunca chegava a qualquer tipo de conclus\u00e3o. Historicamente, os conflitos entre o Cl\u00e3 Tarlac e Cl\u00e3 Brian Rua pelo dom\u00ednio de Thomond se estenderam mais ou menos de 1260 at\u00e9 1350. Foram quase cem anos de guerra com pouqu\u00edssimas mudan\u00e7as significativas nas fronteiras e balan\u00e7a de poder.<\/p>\n

Como vender isso a pessoas acostumadas com jogos que nos permite \u201cpintar o mapa\u201d com nossos imp\u00e9rios?\u00a0 Ou, se n\u00e3o isto, a wargames<\/em>\u00a0em que a vit\u00f3ria ou a derrota estavam vinculadas a uma \u00fanica batalha ou campanha?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Imagens como essa acima ficaram pendurados (metaforicamente) na minha escrivaninha quando comecei a bolar as regras de Os Triunfos de Tarlac. <\/em>A solu\u00e7\u00e3o, ao meu ver, passava por dois desafios. Primeiro, eu precisaria identificar algum desenlace hist\u00f3rico, dentro do horizonte de espectativa desses reis e magnatas, que pudesse ser chamado de \u201cvit\u00f3ria\u201d. Depois, \u201cgamificar\u201d o percurso at\u00e9 ela para que se tornasse minimamente engajante.<\/p>\n

Como nossos testes nos ensinaram da maneira mais dif\u00edcil, nenhuma dessas quest\u00f5es \u00e9 f\u00e1cil de responder.<\/p>\n

1\u00aa Tentativa: Pontos de febas<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Se estimular jogadores a guerrearam uns com os outros poderia enviesar o jogo a uma dire\u00e7\u00e3o que n\u00e3o desej\u00e1vamos, por que n\u00e3o premi\u00e1-los ao n\u00e3o <\/strong>fazer isso ?<\/p>\n

Essa ideia me levou a pensar num sistema de pontua\u00e7\u00e3o que recompensasse jogadores por a\u00e7\u00f5es historicamente plaus\u00edveis.\u00a0 Chamados de febas<\/em> (em irland\u00eas antigo, \u201cexcel\u00eancia\u201d), esse atributo aumentaria sempre que um jogador fizesse jogadas condizentes a um rei irland\u00eas medieval e diminuiria quando sa\u00edsse dos trilhos.<\/p>\n

Nessa linha, vencer batalhas, reduzir a devasta\u00e7\u00e3o de assentamentos sob seu controle, manter-se pr\u00f3spero e honrar compromissos aumentaria a febas<\/em>. J\u00e1 perder batalhas, ter assentamentos destru\u00eddos por outros jogadores e\u00a0sofrer atos de desobedi\u00eancia a diminuiria.<\/p>\n

Ao final do jogo, a coaliz\u00e3o de jogadores que tivesse mais febas <\/em>\u2013 somando os pontos de todos os seus integrantes \u2013 seria declarada a vencedora.<\/p>\n

Para o jogador que controlasse Thomas de Clare, o magnata ingl\u00eas em Thomond (e que, como um relativo estrangeiro \u00e0 pol\u00edtica irlandesa, n\u00e3o necessariamente jogava pelas mesmas regras),\u00a0 a situa\u00e7\u00e3o seria um pouco mais simples.<\/p>\n

Historicamente, os de Clare buscaram assegurar sua posi\u00e7\u00e3o envolvendo-se na guerra entre os U\u00ed Bhriain. Sua presen\u00e7a na regi\u00e3o dependia de opera\u00e7\u00f5es militares regulares e terminou ap\u00f3s uma derrota em batalha<\/a>.\u00a0 Desta maneira, seus objetivos casavam bem com a l\u00f3gica tradicional dos wargames,\u00a0<\/em>e nos permitiu emprestar suas condi\u00e7\u00f5es de vit\u00f3ria.<\/p>\n

Para vencer com os irlandeses, portanto, era preciso acumular pontos de\u00a0febas<\/em>. Para vencer com os ingleses, por outro lado, era necess\u00e1rio apoiar uma fac\u00e7\u00e3o irlandesa na guerra e garantir que\u00a0eles<\/strong> terminassem o jogo com\u00a0mais\u00a0febas\u00a0<\/em>que seus inimigos.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Castelo de Bunratty, sede do senhorio de Thomas de Clare<\/p><\/div>\n

Em teoria, esse sistema parecia ter tudo para dar certo. Al\u00e9m de evitar que jogadores tentassem trair seus aliados e agir anti-socialmente, a vit\u00f3ria por febas<\/em> permitia que o jogo adquirisse uma dura\u00e7\u00e3o flex\u00edvel. Uma partida, afinal, poderia durar tanto quanto as pessoas quisessem: o \u201cplacar\u201d podia ser fechado a qualquer momento, seja numa escaramu\u00e7a de 30 minutos, seja uma campanha \u00e9pica de 3 dias.<\/p>\n

Infelizmente, as coisas n\u00e3o funcionaram t\u00e3o bem na pr\u00e1tica.<\/p>\n

Resultado<\/strong><\/h3>\n

O que nos parecia a princ\u00edpio a maior for\u00e7a desse sistema \u2013 sua flexibilidade \u2013 mostrou-se seu maior problema. Nosso game, reparamos, n\u00e3o<\/strong> tinha condi\u00e7\u00f5es claras de derrota<\/strong>: era poss\u00edvel \u201cn\u00e3o vencer\u201d ao final da jogatina, nunca ser eliminado do jogo.<\/p>\n

Isto, aliado ao fato de n\u00e3o existirem limite de turnos, fez com que as partidas continuassem indefinidamente: os testers <\/em>n\u00e3o tinham op\u00e7\u00e3o sen\u00e3o jogar at\u00e9 se cansarem.<\/p>\n

Para piorar, a \u201cvit\u00f3ria\u201d, quando ela enfim chegava, n\u00e3o trazia a menor satisfa\u00e7\u00e3o. Em um dos casos mais extremos, uma jogadora conseguiu a proeza de vencer uma partida sem fazer absolutamente nada \u2013 apenas mantendo dist\u00e2ncia dos outros jogadores e evitando se envolver em guerras.<\/p>\n

Ironicamente, isso fazia sentido hist\u00f3rico. Cl\u00edmaxes bomb\u00e1sticos e grandes reviravoltas s\u00e3o ingredientes comuns em Hollywood, nem tanto na hist\u00f3ria humana. Para um rei do s\u00e9culo XIII, ser capaz de governar em paz, sem nenhuma preocupa\u00e7\u00e3o al\u00e9m de ver a grama crescer, era sinal de um grande l\u00edder.<\/p>\n

Um dos nossos objetivos \u2013 fazer nosso jogo t\u00e3o v\u00e1lido do ponto de vista hist\u00f3rico quanto a tese em que ele \u00e9 baseado \u2013 havia dado certo. O problema, agora, era torn\u00e1-la divertido.<\/p>\n

2\u00aa Tentativa: Vit\u00f3ria da coaliz\u00e3o<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Para nossa segunda tentativa, decidimos adotar uma solu\u00e7\u00e3o mais convencional.<\/p>\n

A vit\u00f3ria por febas<\/em> transformava nosso jogo em uma esp\u00e9cie de \u201csimulador de rei\u201d , o que n\u00e3o casava bem com as mec\u00e2nicas que hav\u00edamos escolhido. Hav\u00edamos feito um jogo que n\u00e3o incentivava jogadores a guerrearem, mas em que a \u00fanica alternativa \u00e0 guerra era a ina\u00e7\u00e3o. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Para resolver esse problema, decidimos abandonar a vibe <\/em>de simulador e se aproximar ainda mais dos wargames. <\/em>Vencer, portanto, pediria obrigatoriamente uma vit\u00f3ria militar. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Decidimos manter os pontos de febas<\/em>, s\u00f3 que como condi\u00e7\u00e3o de derrota. <\/strong>Reveses diplom\u00e1ticos e derrotas no campo de batalha lentamente reduziriam esse atributo, como uma barra de \u201cpontos de vida\u201d que gradualmente se esgota. Se a febas <\/em>chegar a zero, \u00e9 game over. <\/em><\/p>\n

Febas, <\/em>assim, representaria o capital pol\u00edtico de uma das fac\u00e7\u00f5es da guerra din\u00e1stica em Thomond. Uma (ou tr\u00eas) derrotas em combate pouco faria para determinar um vencedor. Uma s\u00e9rie de reveses seguidos, por\u00e9m, logo convenceria os aristocratas do reino de que aquele cavalo n\u00e3o venceria mais corridas.<\/p>\n

Para evitar que o jogo n\u00e3o tivesse fim, ser eliminado <\/strong>em combate implicava na perda imediata de todos os pontos de febas. <\/em>A inten\u00e7\u00e3o era aumentar os riscos das batalhas campais, fazendo jogadores optarem por fugir ou se render diante de uma inimigo mais poderoso, como era o costume na \u00e9poca.<\/p>\n

Implementar tudo isso exigiu que trat\u00e1ssemos a diplomacia como um sistema muito mais r\u00edgido. Se nas primeiras vers\u00f5es de Tarlac <\/em>os jogadores eram livres para fazer e desfazer alian\u00e7as \u2013 mediante uma eventual penalidade em febas<\/em> \u2013 nessa vers\u00e3o apoiar sua coaliza\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e9 a \u00fanica condi\u00e7\u00e3o de vit\u00f3ria. <\/strong>Jogadores podiam ser coagidos a mudar de lado cedendo ref\u00e9ns, mas, para ganhar, cedo ou tarde aquele ref\u00e9m precisaria ir embora.\u00a0Se algu\u00e9m inicia o jogo como um aliado do Cl\u00e3 Brian Rua, precisa garantir que ele saia por cima. Custe o que custar.<\/p>\n

Esse mesma rigidez precisamos aplicar \u00e0s guerras. Ao contr\u00e1rio das vers\u00f5es iniciais, em que jogadores podiam escolher quando ou se come\u00e7ar uma guerra, o conflito agora se tornava regular e obrigat\u00f3rio. Acabados estavam os dias em que uma tester<\/em> podia vencer simplesmente ficando na sua e evitando os conflitos na vizinhan\u00e7a.<\/p>\n

Resultado<\/strong><\/h3>\n

A segunda tentativa funcionou muito melhor. Ainda assim, ela n\u00e3o foi isenta de problemas.<\/p>\n

A ideia de transformar a morte em combate em uma condi\u00e7\u00e3o de derrota foi um imenso tiro pela culatra.<\/p>\n

Longe de encorajar jogadores a evitar o combate, essa regra mostrou que era poss\u00edvel vencer o jogo em um s\u00f3 turno. Isto, por sua vez, incentivou os jogadores a apostarem todas as suas fichas na fase de expedi\u00e7\u00e3o.<\/p>\n

O resultado foram jogatinas em que toda a preocupa\u00e7\u00e3o com a log\u00edstica \u2013 originalmente, o assunto principal do jogo \u2013 acabava se tornando um mero pr\u00f3logo para a batalha.<\/p>\n

Como todo o ponto dessas mec\u00e2nicas era criar obst\u00e1culos que aparecessem no longo prazo, isso tornou a fase de manuten\u00e7\u00e3o efetivamente, letra morta: por que um jogador tinha de se preocupar com devasta\u00e7\u00e3o inimiga ou pagamento das tropas se podia mobilizar um ex\u00e9rcito monstruoso e vencer o jogo naquele mesmo turno?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Felizmente, o jogo melhorou enormemente assim que removemos essa condi\u00e7\u00e3o de derrota. De quebra, a experi\u00eancia nos ensinou uma s\u00e9rie de verdades contra-intuitivas.<\/p>\n

Em primeiro lugar, esses testes nos mostraram que mais amplitude de escolha nem sempre \u00e9 melhor. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Nas primeiras vers\u00f5es de Tarlac<\/em>, em que jogadores eram livres para forjar alian\u00e7as e a vit\u00f3ria independia (nominalmente) de uma guerra, nossos testers <\/em>se sentiam perdidos. A filosofia \u201cfa\u00e7a o que quiser\u201d n\u00e3o s\u00f3 os impedia de se engajar emocionalmente com o jogo, como tornava dif\u00edcil at\u00e9 mesmo entender sua l\u00f3gica. Isso \u00e9 veneno para um jogo de estrat\u00e9gia, cuja \u201cgra\u00e7a\u201d reside justamente em dominar as mec\u00e2nicas, antever problemas e gerenciar suas for\u00e7as de maneiras criativas.<\/p>\n

Em segundo lugar, ela nos fez entender, ao menos parcialmente, porque tantos jogos sobre a idade m\u00e9dia t\u00eam mec\u00e2nicas relacionadas ao combate.<\/p>\n

Em adi\u00e7\u00e3o ao apelo midi\u00e1tico de cavaleiros em armaduras brilhantes, o combate \u2013 e seus proxies \u2013 cria cen\u00e1rios de competi\u00e7\u00e3o direta com que jogadores t\u00eam facilidade em se engajar.<\/p>\n

No nosso caso, isso nos levou a gradativamente reorientar Tarlac <\/em>para que o conflito militar ocupasse um lugar de maior destaque do que hav\u00edamos antevisto inicialmente.<\/p>\n

Isso n\u00e3o significou abandonar nossa proposta original \u2013 um game sobre as causas e efeitos da guerra, mais do que sobre a guerra em si. Em especial, a mec\u00e2nica de\u00a0devasta\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a0<\/strong>funciona como uma r\u00e9dea para qualquer jogador que chegue ao tabuleiro com ilus\u00f5es imperialistas.<\/p>\n

Devasta\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e9 uma propriedade dos assentamentos que aumenta sempre que alguma atividade militar ocorre naquela casa. Este ganho \u00e9 proporcional ao tamanho dos ex\u00e9rcitos: quanto mais soldados um jogador mobiliza, mais r\u00e1pido transformar\u00e1 seu reino em uma pilha de cinzas.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Tokens de devasta\u00e7\u00e3o no atual prot\u00f3tipo de Tarlac. Pilhas de ponta-cabe\u00e7a (i.e. com o fundo cinza para cima) representam assentamentos destru\u00eddos.<\/p><\/div>\n

Assentamentos s\u00e3o necess\u00e1rios para alimentar soldados em marcha, mas deixam de funcionar caso sejam destru\u00eddos. Um cen\u00e1rio como o da imagem acima, portanto, embora n\u00e3o uma condi\u00e7\u00e3o de derrota\u00a0stritu sensu<\/em>, for\u00e7ar\u00e1 os jogadores a um impasse, impedindo que mantenham seus ex\u00e9rcitos e consigam vencer a guerra.<\/p>\n

O\u00a0feedback<\/em> dos nossos\u00a0testers<\/em> mostrou que o princ\u00edpio foi um sucesso. Alguns membros da equipe chegaram a sugerir que os efeitos da devasta\u00e7\u00e3o fossem “nerfados”, at\u00e9 perceberem que a impot\u00eancia que sentiam fazia parte de um prop\u00f3sito: observar seu\u00a0\u201cgeneral de poltrona\u201d interior rapidamente dar lugar \u00e0 sensa\u00e7\u00e3o de que a guerra, como o veneno, deve ser manejada em pequenas doses.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Cena de batalha da B\u00edblia de Holkham, de meados do s\u00e9culo XIV<\/p><\/div>\n

Ainda assim, nossa experi\u00eancia nos deixou uma hist\u00f3ria cautelar: \u00e9 preciso muito pouco para que um jogo, seguindo o caminho de menor resist\u00eancia, torne-se uma apologia da guerra. Uma alta incid\u00eancia de conflitos \u00e9 perdo\u00e1vel (e, eu diria, necess\u00e1ria) para representa\u00e7\u00f5es da Irlanda dos s\u00e9culos XIII e XIV, em que expedi\u00e7\u00f5es eram t\u00e3o frequentes que representavam quase uma atividade anual. Por\u00e9m, h\u00e1 muito a se perder aplicando essa l\u00f3gica indiscriminadamente \u00e0 hist\u00f3ria de outros lugares ou \u00e9pocas.<\/p>\n

A viol\u00eancia \u00e9 uma muleta de game design assustadoramente eficiente.
\n
<\/a>
\n\"\"<\/p>\n

This post is part of a series. To read the previous articles, click here<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Featured image: the Ardagh Chalice, from the collection of the National Museum of Ireland<\/a>. This artefact was the inspiration behind the Sam Maguire Cup<\/a> offered to winners of the\u00a0All-Ireland Senior Football Championship.<\/a>\u00a0Photo by Rihani<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Games are not made exclusively of rules, fancy miniatures or boardgames with appealing artwork. While there are many definitions of what constitutes a “game” — to\u00a0Civilization’s\u00a0<\/em>Sid Meier<\/a>, they are basically a “series of interesting decisions” — many of them include two fundamental elements: ways to\u00a0win\u00a0<\/strong>— and\/or, to\u00a0lose.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Victory and failure conditions may seem like trivial things at first sight. From a game design perspective, however, they are anything but. The challenge is twice as hard for historical games, which need to balance the imperative of providing fun with goals that would make sense to people in the past.<\/p>\n

As historian Robert Houghton<\/a> once pointed out, it is precisely there where many commercial games are found lacking.<\/p>\n

Everyone knows examples of games that portray past societies with a great level of polish, but allow players to act like no historical character ever would.<\/p>\n

As I wrote in a previous post<\/a>, many strategy games bow to the 4X formula (ex<\/strong>plore, ex<\/strong>pand, ex<\/strong>ploit, ex<\/strong>terminate). To “win”, in these games, is intimately tied with\u00a0growing.<\/strong> Oftentimes, over other players or weaker NPCs.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

This logic sort of matches the ideology of certain empires in the 19th and 20th centuries. However, it cannot in any way be taken as a general law of human history.<\/p>\n

The very act of indiscriminately annexing territory, that these games take for granted, depended on substantial logistics, military organization and political will that many past leaders lacked — and had no plans of developing.<\/p>\n

In the period in which\u00a0The Triumphs of Turlough\u00a0<\/em>is set, for example (1276 to 1318), Irish kings ruled over provinces that were minuscule for contemporary standards. Thomond, the game’s kingdom, barely had 3,5k km2<\/sup>\u00a0of territorial extent. (Sergipe<\/a>, Brazil’s smallest state, is over six times bigger with 21,9k km2<\/sup>).<\/p>\n

These rulers counted with armies that were rarely more than a few hundred men strong. Among these, the bulk came from the contributions of their vassals, who could simply turn against their king if he made choices of which they disapproved. Kingdoms like these did not have the conditions to wage war for longer than a few months. Nor to expand indiscriminately, absorbing more insubordinate vassals — and, with them, even more problems.<\/p>\n

To “govern”, in this context, was less an issue of conquest and supremacy than of finding a balance between the demands one’s subjects were willing to comply with and the resources needed to dissuade one’s rivals from rebelling.<\/p>\n

To make matters worse, this modality of low intensity warfare almost never reached any sort of conclusion. Historically, the conflicts between Clann Turlough and Clann Brian Rua for the rulership of Thomond stretched from roughly the 1260s to the 1350s. It was almost a hundred years of warfare with very little significative changes in borders or the balance of power.<\/p>\n

How can we sell this idea to people used to games that allow us to “paint the map” with the colors of our empire? Or, if not that, with wargames in which victory and failure derive from the outcome of a single battle or campaign?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Images like the above hung above my desk (metaphorically speaking) when I started to design the rules for\u00a0The Triumphs of Turlough.\u00a0<\/em>The solution, in my mind, required tackling two challenges. First, I would need to identify some historical outcome within the horizon of expectation of these kings and magnates that could be conceive of as a “victory”. Then, I had to “gamify” the route leading to it so that it became minimally engaging.<\/p>\n

As our tests taught us in the most difficult way possible, neither of these issues is easy to address.<\/p>\n

1st Attempt: febas\u00a0<\/i>score<\/strong><\/h3>\n

If inciting players to wage war on one another could tilt the game towards a direction we did not want it to go, why not reward them for\u00a0not<\/strong> doing it?<\/p>\n

This idea led me to think about a score system that rewarded players for historically plausible actions. Called\u00a0febas<\/em> (Old Irish for “excellence”), this attribute increased every time a player took decisions that befitted a Medieval Irish king and decreased when they went off the tracks.<\/p>\n

In this vein, winning battles, reducing the devastation of settlements under one’s control, keeping oneself prosperous and honoring agreements would increase one’s\u00a0febas<\/em>. On the other hand, losing battles, having settlements destroyed by other players and suffering acts of disobedience would decrease it.<\/p>\n

At the end of the match, the coalition of Irish kings with the highest sum of\u00a0febas<\/em>\u00a0would be declared the winner.<\/p>\n

For the player that controlled Thomas de Clare, the English magnate in Thomond (and who, as a relative outsider to Gaelic politics, did not necessarily abide by the same playbook) the situation was slightly simpler.<\/p>\n

Historically, the de Clares sought to consolidate their position by getting involved in the war between the U\u00ed Bhriain. Their presence in the region depended on regular military operations and ended after a defeat in the battlefield<\/a>. As such, their objectives matched the traditional logic of wargames quite well, and that allows us to borrow the genre’s victory conditions.<\/p>\n

To win as an Irish king, therefore, one would need to accumulate\u00a0febas.\u00a0<\/em>To win as an English magnate, on the other hand, one had to support an Irish faction in war and make sure\u00a0they<\/strong> ended the game with more\u00a0febas\u00a0<\/em>than their enemies.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Bunratty castle, seat of Thomas de Clare’s lordship in Thomond<\/p><\/div>\n

In theory, this system seemed poised to succeed. In addition to discouraging players from backstabbing colleagues and acting anti-socially, the victory by\u00a0febas<\/em> made the game very flexible. A match, after all, could last as long as people wanted it: the score could be counted at any time, be it after a 30 minutes skirmish or an epic 3h campaign.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, things did not go so well in practice.<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/h3>\n

What seemed to us at first the system’s greatest strength — its flexibility — proved to be its downfall. Our game, we noticed,\u00a0had no clear failure conditions:\u00a0<\/strong>it was possible to fail to win at the end of a match, never to be eliminated.<\/p>\n

That, added to the fact that we had no turn limit, caused matches to continue indefinitely. The testers had no choice aside from keep playing until they got bored.<\/p>\n

To make matters worse, “victory”, when it finally arrived, brought no satisfaction at all. In one of the most extremes cases, one player managed to win a match without doing absolutely anything — simply by keeping her distance from other players and avoiding getting involved in wars.<\/p>\n

Ironically, this made some sense from a historical point of view. Bombastic climaxes and great twists of fate are common ingredients in Hollywood, not so much in human history. For a 13th century king, being able to govern in peace, with no worries other than waiting for the grass to grow, was a hallmark of a great leader.<\/p>\n

One of our goals — to make our game as historically valid as the thesis it is based on — was starting (albeit awkwardly) to work. The problem, now, was to make it fun.<\/p>\n

2nd attempt: Coalition victory<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

For our second attempt, we decided to adopt a more conventional solution.<\/p>\n

Victory by\u00a0febas<\/em> had transformed our game in a kind of “king simulator”, which did not quite match the mechanics we had chosen. We had made a game that did not encourage players to wage war, but in which the\u00a0only alternative to war was inaction.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

To solve this impasse, we decided to abandon the simulator paradigm and bring our game even closer to wargames. To win, therefore, would specifically imply a\u00a0military victory.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We decided to keep the\u00a0febas\u00a0<\/em>score, only now as a\u00a0failure condition.\u00a0<\/strong>Diplomatic downturns and defeats in battle would slowly reduce the attribute, like a gradually diminishing hit points bar. If one’s\u00a0febas<\/em> reached zero, it was game over.<\/p>\n

Febas,\u00a0<\/em>in this vein, would represent the political capital of one of the factions in the dynastic dispute taking place in Thomond. One (or three) lost battles would do little to determine a winner. A string of defeats, however, would soon convince the kingdom’s aristocrats that that horse had no more races left in it.<\/p>\n

To avoid allowing the game to drag for too long, we decided that being eliminated\u00a0<\/strong>in combat implied in the immediate loss of all\u00a0febas\u00a0<\/em>points. The intention was to increase the risk of pitched battles, inducing players to opt for running away or surrendering, as it was customary at the time.<\/p>\n

Implementing all of this required treating diplomacy as a much more stringent system. If in our first prototypes players were free to make and unmake alliances — in exchange for an appropriate\u00a0febas\u00a0<\/em>penalty — in this version supporting your coalition was the\u00a0only victory condition.\u00a0<\/strong>Players could be coerced into changing sides by ceding hostages, but, if they wanted to win, sooner or later that hostage would have to go. If one started a match as a Clann Brian Rua ally, for instance, one should make sure they came out on top at the end. Whatever it took.<\/p>\n

We had to apply a similar rigidity to warfare. Unlike the previous versions, in which players could choose when or if to start a war, conflict was now regular and mandatory. Gone were the days when a tester could win by simply staying put and avoiding neighboring conflicts.<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The second attempt worked much better than the first. Still, it was not bereft of issues.<\/p>\n

The idea of making the death in combat an automatic failure condition was an immense misfire.<\/p>\n

Far from encouraging players to avoid combat, this rule showed that it was possible to win the game in a single turn. This, by its turn, pushed players to bet everything on the battlefield.<\/p>\n

The result were matches in which all of the concerns with logistics — originally, the main theme of the game — ended up becoming a mere prologue to the expedition phase.<\/p>\n

Since the whole point of these mechanics was to create obstacles that appeared in the long run, this effectively made the maintenance phase meaningless: why would a player worry about enemy devastation or feeding soldiers if they could mobilize a monstrous army and win the match that very round?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Fortunately, the situation improved considerably once we removed this failure condition. In addition, this experience taught us some unorthodox pieces of wisdom.<\/p>\n

First, these tests showed us that\u00a0a broader range for player choices is not always better.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the preliminary versions of\u00a0Turlough<\/em>, in which players were free to forge alliances and victory did not (nominally) depended on war, our testers felt lost. The “do whatever you want” philosophy not only prevented them from emotionally engaging with the game, but even made it harder to assimilate its logic. This is poison for a strategy game, in which the “fun” resides precisely in mastering the mechanics, anticipating problems and managing your forces in creative ways.<\/p>\n

Second, it made us understand, at least partially, why so many games about the Middle Ages had combat-related mechanics.<\/p>\n

In addition to the mediatic appeal of knights in shining armor, combat — and its proxies — create scenarios of direct competition that players find easy to engage with. In our case, this led us to gradually reorient\u00a0Turlough<\/em> so that the military conflict occupied a more prominent role than we had originally anticipated.<\/p>\n

This did not imply in abandoning our original idea – a game about the causes and effects of warfare, rather than the war itself. Notably, the\u00a0devastation\u00a0<\/strong>mechanic works well in reining in any player that may sit at the board with imperialistic delusions in mind.<\/p>\n

Devastation is a settlement attribute that increases every time some military activity occurs in that hex. This increase is proportional to the size of armies: the more soldiers a player mobilizes, the faster they will turn their kingdom into a pile of ashes.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Devastation tokens in the current Turlough<\/em> prototype. Upside down piles (i.e. with the grey side upward) represent destroyed settlements.<\/p><\/div>\n

Settlements are needed to feed marching soldiers, but cease to work if they are destroyed. A scenario like the one above, therefore, while not a failure state per se, will nevertheless drive players to an impasse, preventing them from keeping the armies they need to win the war.<\/p>\n

The feedback from our testers showed that this principle was a success. Some of our team members even suggested “nerfing” the effects of devastation before they realized the sense of impotence they were facing was part of the plan: to make their inner armchair general quickly give way to the realization that war, like poison, should be handled only in small doses.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Battle scene from the Holkham bible, mid 14th century.<\/p><\/div>\n

Still, our experience works as a cautionary tale: it takes very little for a game, following the path of least resistance, to become an apologia of war. A high incidence of conflict is acceptable (and, I’d argue, necessary) for depictions of 13th and 14th c. Ireland, in which military hostings were so frequent they constituted an almost regular yearly activity. However, there is a lot of harm to be done in indiscriminately applying this logic to the history of other places or periods.<\/p>\n

As far as game design crutches go, violence is a terrifyingly effective one.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Esse post \u00e9 parte de uma s\u00e9rie. Para ler os artigos anteriores, clique aqui. Imagem destacada: C\u00e1lice de Ardagh, da cole\u00e7\u00e3o do Museu Nacional da Irlanda.\u00a0Este artefato medieval foi a inspira\u00e7\u00e3o da ta\u00e7a Sam Maguire, entregue atualmente ao vencedor do campeonato s\u00eanior de futebol ga\u00e9lico da Irlanda. Foto de Rihani. Jogos n\u00e3o s\u00e3o feitos apenas […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":22464,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[580,21],"tags":[175,483,589,671,427],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/20201125-ardagh-chalice.jpg?fit=1600%2C1109","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9rUzW-5Qa","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22454"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22454"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22454\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22476,"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22454\/revisions\/22476"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22464"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.finisgeekis.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}