Thoughts On Input/Output Uncertainty

With two games of Flower of Chivalry (FoC) under my belt and the sounds of battle still ringing in my ears after Richard’s latest practice game (see Flower of Chivalry Practice Game), I have been pondering the turn sequence.  Am I overthinking the rules’ design? Perhaps.  To the relief of some, there will be no machine learning techniques explained, probability distributions scrutinized, or simulation studies explored. Not this time, anyway.

Instead, I want to consider a simpler question.  Does the order in which we discover what our troops can do make a difference to the decisions we make?  More specifically, would a small change to the turn sequence give players a little more scope for planning without removing the uncertainty of command?

The turn sequence, as written, is:

1. Check command.
2. Resolve personal challenges.
3. Choose Aggression Levels.
4. Roll to determine accepted orders.
5. Draw one Action Card to determine the number of actions available.
6. Execute orders.

The player chooses an Aggression Level in step (3), but the results in steps (4) and (5) determine what that commitment actually allows.  First, will the desired order be accepted?  Second, will there be enough actions to carry it out?  That second question gave Ray and me something to consider during Richard’s game.  Choosing an aggressive posture is one thing.  Discovering afterward that orders are not obeyed and that the Battle lacks the actions needed to make much of it, anyway, is another.

Now, uncertainty is not necessarily a problem.  A commander should not expect everything to go according to plan.  The question is whether the uncertainty presents an interesting problem to solve or leaves too little opportunity to respond.  Does the second hurdle of the action-card draw add something useful, or does it simply compound the first hurdle of order acceptance?

A useful distinction here is between input and output uncertainty in game design.  The terminology is not as mysterious as it may sound.  Input uncertainty comes before a decision.  Discover resources available, assess the situation, and decide what to attempt.  Output uncertainty comes afterward.  Make the decision, then discover how events affect its execution.

In FoC, both the order roll and the action-card draw come after the choice of Aggression Level.  Having chosen an Aggression Level, the player receives a double dose of output uncertainty.  The intended order may not be accepted.  Even if it is, the number of actions available may leave the player unable to accomplish what was intended.  Output uncertainty is not inherently bad.  Deciding whether a plan is worth the risk can be an interesting command problem.  The existing sequence also rewards planning across several possible action-card draws.  There is a case for leaving things alone.

Still, I wonder whether both uncertainties need to follow the same commitment or single decision point.  On a poor turn, it can feel like stumbling twice on the way to the same destination.  My preference would be to reveal the action allowance before choosing Aggression Levels.  Let the player know the Battle’s capacity for the turn, then decide how ambitious to be.  A limited number of actions might suggest a limited effort.  A more generous number of actions might offer an opportunity to press forward.  Neither makes the decision automatic.  A good card need not make an attack wise, and a poor card may not make waiting sensible.  The enemy and the situation on the table still have something to say about that.

The proposed sequence would be:

1. Check command.
2. Resolve personal challenges.
3. Draw one Action Card to determine the number of actions available.
4. Choose Aggression Levels.
5. Roll to determine accepted orders.
6. Execute orders.

Move the action-card draw up in the sequence (from '5' to '3') ahead of choosing Aggression Level.  That is the extent of the change. The action-card distribution remains the same, as does the procedure for determining accepted orders.  Knowing the number of actions before choosing Aggression Level would not guarantee that the desired order is followed.

What changes is the problem facing the player.  Rather than choosing aggression and hoping sufficient actions appear, the player chooses aggression with the available actions in mind.  The focus shifts from anticipating capacity to adapting to it.  Would this make attacks easier to arrange?  Perhaps.  Would it encourage players to sit and wait for a better card?  Possibly.  Those are questions for another game, not conclusions to draw after two outings.

For now, I think it is worth a try.  Let the action-card draw define the problem the commander must solve.  Then let the order roll provide uncertainty over carrying out the solution.  To my mind, that retains enough command friction without asking both mechanisms to frustrate the same commitment.