Gun beats Fist This post isn''t about combat mechanics. It''s about character development. Gun: Aim and equipment. That''s all that matters. The gun doesn''t care if your opponent is a saint or a waste of skin, it will kill them just the same. Advantage to a narrow set of skills and the right tools. Fist: A person''s strength of character is integral to their success. It''s all interconnected, and no single skill is more important than another. Staying true to yourself and your nature keeps you strong, while doubts or straying from the path of can make you weaker. Learning medicine helps improve your martial arts and vice-versa. Gun beats Fist: This is reality. Kung-fu can''t protect you from a bullet. Faced with a gun? Simply climb further up the scale. Fist->pistol->assault rifle->tank->... If two gunslingers with equal equipment come to duel, the only that matters is aim. A single cross-hair and mouse click. This is Rambo. Fist beats gun: This is fantasy. Escapist fantasy, where the good guy wins in spite of the odds. However, since we are in the business of creating entertainment, this is a viable design choice. RPGs tend to fit here. Adventure and fighter games too. This is Luke Skywalker. Comparison: If your character improves his attack by repeatedly swinging a sword or getting a bigger sword, then he is following the way of the gun. If he improves his attack by meditating under an icy waterfall then he is following the way of the fist. So what does this mean for game design? The two philosophies are mostly incompatible. Designing the game to follow one philosophy, then switching to follow the other one in mid-stream won''t work. Designing the gun: If your player improves by pursuing a single activity (murder), repeated activity (skilling), or pursuit of a single resource (gold) then you are following the way of the gun. Attempting to tack on rewards as character building (quests, story) feels false. It would be better to devote more effort to more interesting guns (equipment), or more skill/resource levels. Example: Diablo II didn''t bother with much beyond levelling up and better equipment. It''s a solid, well-balanced design. It''s not epic, and it''s not about improving the spirit. Nor was it designed to be. For a strat game it means make your tech tree taller not broader. Your players will be winning through tank rushes, for better or worse. Designing the fist: Focus on developing broader options where the player can express style. Specific improvements can be used for a variety of tasks. Or advancing to the next level improves overall performance rather than a micromanaged set of points. Example: Increases in magic power apply to all spells, or to whichever spells the player allocates them to that turn. There''s no need to permanently assign the point distribution. Make your tech tree/skill base broader rather than taller. Make research parallel. Example: Have 12 techs at each level of the tree and let the player focus on a package of 3 at a time. An ''EMF technology'' package level 1 might be described as lasers - improve communications, information tech, and attack value - while a ''Metals technology'' package level 1 might improve construction rate, attack value, and defense value. They overlap. Can they be mixed? Maybe. It''s awfully hard to do so. I''d say putting them both in a game is ok, but keep the elements separate. D&D, my perennial target, had a mix of both. Where these two philosophies clashed is where a lot of complaints with the system lie. The primary rewards are for a narrow set of activities (murder), but the rewards are general improvements (level). Players who engage in general character building are not significantly rewarded, while other folks complain that the classes are not specialized enough. I''m not trying to say one way is better than the other. Most computer games today follow the gun, and we all bitch. If they all followed the fist then we''d probably still bitch.

I like it, I realy do... This is a rather intresting way of thinking of this issue...

Anyways, good work

*goes and saves this to disk *

ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS
Visit Tiberia: it''s bigger, it''s badder, it''s pouyer...

Cool. I really like what you''ve said so I''m trying not to be too picky.

quote: Original post by JSwing

Gun:
Aim and equipment. That''s all that matters. The gun doesn''t care if your opponent is a saint or a waste of skin, it will kill them just the same. Advantage to a narrow set of skills and the right tools.

Ah. You Americans have guns that walk around, find their target, and pull their own trigger? Your fist doesn''t care about your opponent, it''s just bone and muscle. For both "weapons" it''s your brain that make the decissions.

quote:
Gun beats Fist:
This is reality. Kung-fu can''t protect you from a bullet. Faced with a gun? Simply climb further up the scale. Fist->pistol->assault rifle->tank->...

No. Wrong. Sort of. If someone pulls any weapon on you, and you''re unarmed, you have to use your brain - most of your attack has to be psychological. Kung Fu can''t protect you from a bullet, but it can protect you from a gun wielding opponent. The only major drawback - it''s bloody difficult.

A gun vs. a fist would be a pretty boring contest. Since they''d both be static on the ground without the control of a brain.

quote:
Fist beats gun:
This is fantasy.

"Fist" can beat brain not "gun", that''s all that counts really.

quote:
Comparison:
If your character improves his attack by repeatedly swinging a sword or getting a bigger sword, then he is following the way of the gun. If he improves his attack by meditating under an icy waterfall then he is following the way of the fist.

This is why I like your post. Although I don''t really agree with your assessment of the weapons, this underlying point of the "paths" of character development is really quite good.

quote:
Can they be mixed?
Maybe. It''s awfully hard to do so. I''d say putting them both in a game is ok, but keep the elements separate.

Not sure about that. Maybe keeping them seperate would make matters worse. In mammals, aggression and conflict is largely a combination of your way of the "gun" and way of the "fist". I tend to think that striking a more natural balance for your key character would work better.

Of course, finding this natural balance might be tricky.

quote:
The primary rewards are for a narrow set of activities (murder), but the rewards are general improvements (level). Players who engage in general character building are not significantly rewarded, while other folks complain that the classes are not specialized enough.

The way of the "gun" always provides more immediate results to the practitioner. It''s realistic but encourages the lack of development on the mental ("fist") side.

Again, you want to strike a natural balance and give the player the opportunity to deviate if that''s what they really want to do.

Eight

Brilliant insight. This really is a spark of inspiration.

I''ll try to add a bit of fuel to the fire, with my insights:

Gun beats fist, is really about attitude.
Attitude can be everything, if it matters in the game. If you can intimidate your enemy, or outwit them in ways other than having the bigger sword or skill, you''ve added attitude to the game.

One end of the scale: Karate Kid. The kid''s technique is good, but he wins it on attitude. He''s not necessarily the better karateka, but he wants to win for the right reasons.
Other end of the scale: sword-showoff in Indiana Jones. An example of a lot of attitude in a situation where you''d be better off having none. Indy shoots the sword-showoff.

Another way of looking at it:
risk vs. reward

If you manage to beat a gunfighter with only your fists and wits, you''ve faced enormous risk and succeeded. Should have a large reward.
If you only have a bigger gun than the enemy, intimidation is not a high-risk tactic, because even if it doesn''t work, you''ve still got the bigger gun. Therefore, adding intimidation to a game will make having the bigger gun less attractive, and make you concentrate on some form of using your wits, trying to intimidate the enemy when you know you''re overmatched.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

Haha, I really like this! But as noted above, I do think you're talking not so much about "gun" vs. "fist" but about the difference between linear vs. creative problem solving. (Only, you've said it with more style )

It's incongruent to meditate under and icy river then go butcher a dozen dozen more goblins because the act of butchering is a linear approach to the challenge the game presents you (a horde of monsters, for instance). It's like throwing diplomacy into a wargame and making it pointless because victory conditions don't allow for diplomatic solutions. It's incongruent, and gamers know it.

This is where games like RPGs and strategy games (with variable victory conditions) really shine for people who enjoy creative approaches to challenges: They provide lots of ways of doing the same thing, and (within limits) you can taylor your problem solving to your personality.

It seems to me (being too literal again?) that you can have nothing but guns and STILL conduct creative problem solving. But what you have to do is give people creative ways to use it: Shooting a weapon out of someone's hand; allowing for Mexican standoffs or tense John Woo standoffs (adversaries each holding a gun to the other's head); using your weapon intelligently so as not so summon swarms of guards; using gunfire to scare a crowd away from danger (Die Hard); etc., etc.

It's just a matter of approach: Linear vs. creative. If the game is linear, then the play, level layout, and advancement should be very linear and focused. But, if, as you say, it's "the way of the fist" then you need to provide lots of parallel options.



Side note, btw: A creative approach would make for a more EXPENSIVE game, so maybe that's why we don't see them as much?




--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Edited by - Wavinator on March 23, 2001 3:59:26 PM

Thx for the comments.

I think you folks are taking my terms 'gun' and 'fist' too literally, but I see you get what I meant. Or maybe I could have used better words

We could debate about real world guns vs real world fists (see Boxer Rebellion) but I'd rather talk about games. And I don't mean play styles, I mean design decisions about character development.

A way of the gun game is designed for the player to focus on improvements in narrow, discrete areas. There is also focus on equipment (or other disposable tokens) that can be acquired, exchanged and/or upgraded. Which indirectly implies resource management, often micro-managed.

The analogy is:
If you want to use a gun, you only need to focus on aiming (narrow skill). And getting a good gun/ammo.

Diablo II is a designed like this. So is SMAC.


A way of the fist game is designed to focus on improvements that are broad and general. Improvements are not the result of disposable tokens that can be traded or bought, but represent a change to the nature or value of the player itself.

The analogy is:
Martial arts is more than learning to punch someone in the head. And improving in one area always benefits others.

I'd say Planescapre qualifies, even though it was burdened with a clunky D+D system.
And HOMM uses this for its heroes.
Other suggestions in my first post.

The core of my post is that I think the propositions are mutually exclusive. Anywhere that your game puts the two next to each other will clash, and trying to expand one into the other is doomed to failure. That's the thought anyway, I could be wrong.

Edited by - JSwing on March 23, 2001 7:08:25 PM

quote: Original post by JSwing

I think you folks are taking my terms ''gun'' and ''fist'' too literally, but I see you get what I meant. Or maybe I could have used better words

If it helps at all, in martial arts people often refer to "internal" arts and "external" arts.

Personally, I think it''s often difficult to draw the line since martial arts training is always a combination of both.

Anyway, external arts are more physical and direct e.g. karate, muay thai etc. You spend a lot of time with the physical nature of fighting.

Internal arts put more emphasis on the mind and thoughts behind the fighting. E.g. T''ai Chi.

Maybe they would be better terms to use instead of "gun" and "fist".

E

Sounds to me like the way of the Gun is the way of the Fist taken to xtreme. In the way of the Gun there is accuracy, in the way of the Fist (taken to xtreme) there are lots of skills, but they are all interconnected, so all the skills are the same (cause when you upgrade a skill, you upgrade all the others), none is more important than the other.

In counterstrike, you can specialize in some weapons and really get to know them (so there are special skills for each weapon), but learning to use a weapon will make other weapons much easier to master. So is counterstrike going the way of the Fist ?

There are some problems with the way of the Fist (maybe this is the reason why everyone goes for Gun). If you interconnect skills to much, you lose the freedom to choose an upgrade path. Why bother with the sword if cooking will also make you a warrior . Then, I agree that learning medicine can upgrade your fighting ability a lot (weak points, etc.). Let’s say that 30% of the medicine skill is added to the fighting skill. Hey, wait a minute, this would make the master healer a pretty good ninja .

This can be solved by adding practical and theoretical ratings for a skill. Knowing by heart the Counterstrike tactics, won’t save noone from dieing a lot (theoretical knowledge). But after learning how to aim (practical knoweledge) it helps to know that crouching improves accuracy (theoretical knowledge). I will divide the theoretical rating for a skill in categs. You can know very advanced path-finding algorithms (expert TK), you won’t be able to use these in a game if you don’t read a tut/book on user input (basic TK), and you don’t try doing the user input /graphics yourself (PK). The effectivity of a particular skill is only calculated based on the practical skill. The rate of practical skill improvement is determined by the theoretical knowledge of that skill. Expert TK, wont help raise a low level skill, just like basic TK cant help raise anymore a high level skill.

Example:

Basic skill levels : 1-5; Intermediate levels : 6-10 ; Expert 11-15,…

Action / Consequence

Read the Master Healer’s users guide : +25% Expert theoretical knowledge in medicine.
Read the First Aid manual : +25% Basic TK in medicine.
Raise a Medicine skill to an Intermediate level : +5% intermediate fighting TK, +1% expert fighting TK
Raise a Medicine skill to an Expert level : +5% intermediate fighting TK, +15% expert fighting TK
Raise the Wood-Cutting Skill to any level: +50 fighting PK point.
Witness a fight between expert warriors : +something% fighting expert TK (this is really good, makes arenas crowded; if you need money, get in the gladiator fighting, the PC’s watching will pay you)
See wounded / dead humans : +something% to medicine TK

The Practical Knowledge (PK) is (obviously) earned by practicing the skill. Lets say that to raise a level 3 skill 300 PK points are needed (higher skills require more PK points). The PK points are boosted by the TK of the current skill level. Eearning 10 PK points with skill level 7 (Intermediate), and Intermediate TK at +80% will actually add 18 PK points. This model can make use of the less used attributes like Wisdom (add Wisdom to every skill TK) or Inteligence (getting PK points slowly increases the TK as the character is slowly discovering the rules himself)

This model solves the ninja healer problem, since now the healer has to work out /fight a lot before he can benefit the fighting expert TK he has. I could use more examples of situations when this model would fail, would help me improve it.



What if you called''em "the way of the Sword" and "the way of the Blackjack". Wouldnt make the fist seem so hapless

Damn, I forgot to put my name in again.

E - Thx for the tips. I''m rather ignorant of real world martial arts, so your info is cool.

Diodor- I like your system (copy copy copy).

You''ve also got a valid criticism of the way of the fist design. If any improvement anywhere affects all skills then the characters become bland very fast.

There are two quick ways around it:

1) At any particular time, the character is devoted to a smaller subset of skills. Any improvements the character earns will be spread only across that subset.

One example is the old D+D class system. Fighters who level up get better at fighting and hp, but no magic spellcasting bonuses.

The key to making this work is to decouple the method of improvement (earning xp) from specific tasks (no xp for murder) and switch too a more abstract way of earning it (quests would be a possibility, or character-building tasks like sitting under an icy waterfall which are unrelated to specific skills). This keeps the design consistently way of the fist.

This also works if you hand out the improvements everywhere, but weight them towards the subset of skills that the character is concentrating in - so the fighter does get spell points, but at only a fraction of fighting points.

2) The second is to decouple the area of improvement from specific singular skill. So if a player has a specific Sew Wounds skill which heals a few points of damage, this gets bonuses from studying the general areas of Medicine and/or Sewing.

The Medicine area also benefits the ''cure disease'' and ''critical strike'' skills, while Sewing also contributes to ''repair armor'' skill.

The player only gets to allocate improvements at the general level. The player doesn''t get to practice Sewing Wounds, but he can study Medicine.

A player will expect the rewards to come from the activities or choices that he spends the most time doing. If the skill has a highly random component then you will see a player using the same skill over and over until it succeeds. And he will expect the rewards to come from the repetition.

If, on the other hand, a ''heal wounds'' skill returns a constant number of hitpoints and is only used once after each battle then the player is encouraged to spend more thought allocating points rather than mindlessly repeating the action.

You could also use the second method to give the player a pool to allocate from each turn. Think of a mage who has a pool of mana and allocates some to fire magic, some to air magic, and some to offensive magic. The combination is what determines the result (I don''t know, maybe a firestorm or something). Next round he shifts his allocation around for a different set of results.

Way of the fist design promotes style and balance over precision and speed. Broad character development over narrow focus. It''s not good for all games. It''s usually too abstract to be a good model for a realistic game. And I still contend that way of the fist elements rubbing against way of the gun elements is bad design.