Another dimension of the game that seems susceptible of analysis is the significance of the incrementalism that is involved in the moves and value systems. Take, for example, a game that involves moving pieces over a board or troops over some terrain. If players move in turn, each moving one piece one square at a time, the game proceeds at a slow tempo by small increments; the situation on the board may change character in the course of play, but it does so by a succession of small changes that can be observed, appreciated, and adapted to, with plenty of time for the mistakes of individual players or mutual mistakes that destroy value for both of them to be observed, adapted to, and avoided in subsequent play. If there is communication, there is time for the players to bargain verbally and to avoid moves that involve mutual destruction. But suppose that, instead, the pieces can be moved several at a time in any direction and any distance and that the rules make the outcome of any hostile clash enormously destructive for one or both sides. Now the game is not so incremental; things can happen abruptly. There may be a temptation toward surprise attack.

XREF: Connects to game theory and Schelling's work on brinkmanship, mutual destruction, and the destabilizing effect of first-strike advantages — likely from a chapter on conflict and strategy. Builds on: "Strategic moves win by constraining one's own behavior."

Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, loc. 382