Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/08/30 02:28:08


Post by: Nurglitch


Lately I've been involved in discussions about how to address bad players in games. There are, for some reason, a large market segment of players whose enthusiasm for games is only matched by their ineptitude.

I'm not sure what it is about a game that makes me (a) want to learn it, and (b) keep playing it after being taken to the woodshed. Running demo-games is an art to itself, quite aside from this persistence in the face of being unlikely to win. People also tend to enjoy close games more. They don't seem to enjoy getting smacked in the face because they weren't paying attention, and didn't care enough to read the rules or pay attention during the introduction script.

From a commercial standpoint, "learn to play" is never a good answer to why your game doesn't work as advertised. How would you solve the problem of a bad player complaining about how your game allows them to make a bad move?



Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/08/30 03:55:43


Post by: greatbigtree


Board game, card game, computer game, mind game, game bird, bird brain, brain ball, ball game...

What kind of game are you working on? As a hunch, you might not be explaining the rules very clearly.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/08/30 09:09:05


Post by: Peregrine


You can't solve the problem, except by telling the bad player to STFU and stop being a about it. A game can't remove the ability to make a bad move without ceasing to be a game, as long as there are meaningful choices to be made by the players it will be possible for them to make bad choices. This is especially true when you're talking about players who are bad because they don't bother to know the rules of the game they're "playing". The best thing you can do is encourage these people to go elsewhere before the frustration of dealing with them ruins the experience for everyone else.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/08/30 12:44:53


Post by: Nurglitch


 greatbigtree wrote:
Board game, card game, computer game, mind game, game bird, bird brain, brain ball, ball game...

What kind of game are you working on? As a hunch, you might not be explaining the rules very clearly.

There is the notion that the game hasn't been explained correctly if players are making bad moves. "Explained correctly" means a lot of things though. Take Warhammer 40,000, for example. It's a pretty punishing game, and winning can be pretty abstracted from the moving and shooting that players actually do. I've noticed, particularly in tournaments (maybe because I'm concentrating on the winning conditions), that players will forget about winning the game and just try to destroy the opposing army. So maybe the rules can be explained, but there's too many steps in the game between players doing something and players scoring points.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/08/30 21:49:19


Post by: Easy E


Well, I think you have started to answer your own question.

The relationship between what behaviors lead to victory and what activities you can complete must be clear and easy to see. If they are too subtle and nuanced a player may not realize what activities lead to victory.

For example, Candyland has very clear victory to behavior conditions. First to the end of the board wins. The more squares you can move at a time the faster you get to the end. Therefore, draw cards with colors that are the furthest away from your current position.

Now, some people will call such a game stupid and boring because what you need to do to "solve" the game is too obvious. This maybe true, but if the behaviors of victory are unclear, then the player will not know how to win accept by trial and error, which can also be boring and stupid.

The trick is making it so multiple behaviors can clearly allow you to win, the trick is would be for Players to know when to use which behaviors.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/08/30 22:08:02


Post by: Dark Severance


It can be complicated. Bad players in board games differ than bad players in miniatures games which also differs from bad players in TCGs. Bad players ultimately suffer from making poor decisions, usually because they were not taught properly.

For TCG Players new players suffer from not understanding how metagame works. They don't know how to properly identify a good card vs a bad card. Using draft as an example, they tend to focus on a cards "powers" instead of the value of the card. In TCG is a card costs 2, health 2, attack 2 then we'd consider that worth the 2 points or a decent base card. If it costs 2, health 1, attack 2 but has a cool ability, it is -1 so worth 1 point because situational and 1/1 kills it. If it costs 2, health 3, attack 1 it could be considered +1 and equivalent to a 3 point card. There is more to it than that but that is the basics.

From a 'newer player' point of view, they want to use a cards ability, use its power because they are cool. Why make a cool card that is unusable... that logic is hard to understand but unfortunately the way it is. No one really teaches though proper teaching because in a competitive environment the saying is, "learn to play". In competitive environment players tend to keep insider information on tactics for an edge, looking for how to abuse a card (until it gets errata) or a play.

From a board game, some things are more intuitive than others. I find that the falls of the rules not making things easily understandable. Board games can adjust for bad players the easiest and often do. They tend to do it in a means where a bad decision can be harmful, but not game ending... unlike a competitive game where one wrong move means you lost the whole game period.

In miniatures games, there is some of that competitiveness similar to TCG but not as cutthroat. It also has a bit of bloat, there are things that are cool but aren't useful for most matches. It depends on what other players play, rocks, paper, scissors. Objectives are introduced in a means to make bad decisions less harmful as dying doesn't necessarily translate to losing.

TLDR: In order to improve playability for bad players, there needs to be a better way for them to learn and to teach them. It shouldn't be expected for players to go forward and search the internet to learn. Although that is a good start, everyone learns different ways and there are way too many nuances that are affected by players local playgroups for people to learn why a decision is bad. Often they are told "this is a mistake or don't do this" but not the why it is a bad decision.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/08/30 22:35:39


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Nurglitch wrote:
There is the notion that the game hasn't been explained correctly if players are making bad moves. "Explained correctly" means a lot of things though.


If players are making incorrect, illegal moves, then the rules are unclear.

If players are making sub-optimal, inefficient moves, then the objectives, strategy and/or tactics are unclear.

Both can be explained and clarified to improve the level of play. Rules can nearly always be streamlined to reduce the number of possible errors and mistakes. Objectives can be called out clearly and succinctly to keep the player focused, while limiting to meaningful actions and options with clear results will generally help tactics and strategy development.

If players are not happy with the results of poor play, then you can always take a page from GW's playbook, and add more random elements to reduce the effect of skill and experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dark Severance wrote:
For TCG Players new players suffer from not understanding how metagame works. They don't know how to properly identify a good card vs a bad card.

From a 'newer player' point of view, they want to use a cards ability, use its power because they are cool. Why make a cool card that is unusable...


Stasis is a VERY cool card, with an exceedingly strong power, but it's almost unusable outside a very specific build, where the bulk of the cards are built around it...


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/08/31 11:39:26


Post by: Nurglitch


Something I noticed about Into the Breach (and FTL: Faster Than Light), to borrow from videogames, is that while they're pretty punishing they're also fast. I suppose it helps combat applications of the sunk-cost fallacy.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/03 15:20:39


Post by: some bloke


If you want to reduce the impact of poor decisions, you need to increase the speed of play and reduce the impact of each decision.

Having a bad turn in a game like 40k, where there are only 7 turns, can be crippling. Having a bad turn in a game such as roborally, for example, can be generally be recovered from because the game lasts so many turns.

The aim is to let people learn from their mistakes in time to have a chance, rather than having to learn from them for the next game. Try to avoid making a game where you can put yourself on the path to losing without hope of recovery too early. it'll turn the rest of the game into a drag for the player who can't climb back up.

example: change "you walked into an ambush, so you died" into "you walked into an ambush, you dart behind cover, how will you get out of this?". you still made the mistake, and can learn for next game, but it hasn't ended your chances. just hurt them a bit.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/03 15:30:51


Post by: Overread


There are, as identified, two key areas to this.

The mechanics of the game and the tactics/strategy/choices in the game.


The first one, mechanics, is easy to fix. You make sure the rules are clear; you make sure that they are concise and you make sure that you use sensible language that remains fixed through the entirety of the rules. You basically rules-lawyer the rules whilst also making them accessible to read.
You might also show examples during the rules to show how some specific combinations of rules add up in a different situations; this is so that you can show people hwo common situations are supposed to be resolved in the game itself and can help some identify with the rules more so than just giving them the bare bones details of the rules themselves.


The latter part you can encourage but cannot fix. You can release guides, videos, training aids, you can start local game support groups (eg Privateer Press had their Pressgangers whilst GW has their own paid staff and local stores). You can do all that to encourage people to learn better play; but you can't force them.

Some people never will "get gud" because they don't take it seriously enough; they don't get enough practice; they don't experiment; they don't even pay full attention during the game etc... For them the playing experience might be more hte social side than the actual competitive and mechanic side of the game.



And there is nothing wrong with that approach; the only time its an issue is really when you've small player pools and a big divide in skill levels within the player pool where you often end up with the good and bad playing each other too often.





Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/03 15:40:32


Post by: barboggo


Besides the movement and distance aspect, 40k turns actually play a lot like TCG turns, except it's like a TCG that requires a huge amount of time and space to get started, where each player's turn is some kind of grueling, 30-minute-to-1-hour long cheesy combo where you're sitting there watching as your army gets brutalized. It's always painful to get wrecked in any 1v1 multiplayer game but 40k takes it to a whole new level because the game requires so much investment and because the turns are so long. 40k is one of the few games I've played where it seems really common for games to end right after T1 due to how crippling a bad matchup or severe misplay can be.

As a result, being bad in 40k is substantially more off-putting for new players than being bad in a game like MtG where the rounds are relatively short and the setup time is basically non-existent.

The only way to really address this is to start with smaller games that require less time/energy investment. Unless they're already pretty committed to "git gud", destroying a new player over and over again isn't a great way to teach them the game.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/03 15:48:39


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Nurglitch wrote:
From a commercial standpoint, "learn to play" is never a good answer to why your game doesn't work as advertised. How would you solve the problem of a bad player complaining about how your game allows them to make a bad move?


The thing I'm working with right now is a Co-op game, and players have to work together to formulate their team's actions during a 'tactical phase' of play. This is a point where everyone comes together to decide who they're targeting and what they're going to do (the team is supposed to be highly-trained operatives that know what one another will do in a tactical situation, and their actual 'turn' is a simultaneous event).

To make 'bad players' go from suck to skilled, well- that takes time. Learning the game. That's why one of the main things is "Your guy will probably 'die', but that doesn't mean 'game over' for that character". If someone just doesn't get it, well... sadly, the product isn't for them. And there are games I'm terrible at myself, I can't expect them to incentivize me to keep playing if all I do is lose.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/03 20:34:12


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Overread wrote:
You basically rules-lawyer the rules whilst also making them accessible to read.


Quite a bit easier said than done, a fair bit harder than it sounds...

If only every game had airtight rules that were easy to understand!


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/04 05:16:01


Post by: Lance845


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Overread wrote:
You basically rules-lawyer the rules whilst also making them accessible to read.


Quite a bit easier said than done, a fair bit harder than it sounds...

If only every game had airtight rules that were easy to understand!


The VAST majority do. In my experience it's primarily GW as a company that regularly fails t have clear functional rules. Sure, some other companies have occasional slip ups. But only GW has built a brand out of it.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/04 05:51:46


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Lance845 wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Overread wrote:
You basically rules-lawyer the rules whilst also making them accessible to read.


Quite a bit easier said than done, a fair bit harder than it sounds...

If only every game had airtight rules that were easy to understand!


The VAST majority do. In my experience it's primarily GW as a company that regularly fails t have clear functional rules. Sure, some other companies have occasional slip ups. But only GW has built a brand out of it.


Actually, no. The vast majority of games aren't played nearly as much as GW, and don't have nearly the contingent of TFGs. or, at least, didn't until Warmahordes came to take them away, ha ha! But now that Warmahordes is dead, they're crawling back.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/04 17:31:57


Post by: Nurglitch


I'm actually kind of interested how GW has done that. It's kind of amazing. Everything else being equal it's probably worth trying to understand how they're so successful doing something that seems, on the face of it, 'wrong.'

I suppose Warmahordes is dead, since everything else wasn't equal (there's a thread on it in Dakka Discussions if anyone doesn't know the consensus on that), but stuff like Infinity is alive and growing in my area. I think it's in part because the game is explicitly designed to have the players co-operate as well as compete. From what I've seen it really makes the social contract for play explicit. That said I haven't played it, or really taken a read of the rules for it.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 03:03:23


Post by: Lance845


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Overread wrote:
You basically rules-lawyer the rules whilst also making them accessible to read.


Quite a bit easier said than done, a fair bit harder than it sounds...

If only every game had airtight rules that were easy to understand!


The VAST majority do. In my experience it's primarily GW as a company that regularly fails t have clear functional rules. Sure, some other companies have occasional slip ups. But only GW has built a brand out of it.


Actually, no. The vast majority of games aren't played nearly as much as GW, and don't have nearly the contingent of TFGs. or, at least, didn't until Warmahordes came to take them away, ha ha! But now that Warmahordes is dead, they're crawling back.


No. I wasn't saying miniature war games. I was saying games. As in all of them. The vast majority are played by a much larger portion of the game playing community (miniature war games is still a relatively small niche) with tighter rules and being easy to read. GW is the exception in that they have lots of poorly written rules that have lots of logical errors and often just don't actually work.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 04:46:13


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Except, that isn't true at all. GW's rules are no worse than any other ruleset of comparable complexity.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 09:17:06


Post by: Overread


I think there are two aspects to consider

1) The rules themselves

2) The wording and layout of the rules.

GW rules are not the issue so often as it is the way they are written and the way they are laid out in the books. Furthermore the current lack of an index further hides things. AoS has several rules that are dotted around in semi-random places where you can easily miss them.

An example is Endless Spells in Matched Play. If you look at the big Endless spell page in the main rules or in the Malign Sorcery book then that page suggests that you may cast an Endless spell (that you've paid points for) as many times as you want so long as you've a model for it to put on the table.

However in the Army building section of Matched Play (many pages away) there is a short paragraph which outlines that in Matched Play you may only use 1 of any Endless spell that you've paid for at a time.



It is lots of little things like this that make GW rules harder because the information is not where you expect it to be and there are no leaders or notations to guide to you further key bits of information. This has often been the issue.

Another issue (which they have improved on significantly with the new editions of both 40K and AoS) was how they'd roll out codex haphazardly after a new rules edition; which would result in players using old rules (sometimes two editions old) with new core rules which sometimes would result in odd situations of things not working as they should.

The third issue is often when two codex rules change a core rule and happen at the same time; it can be unclear (at times) which rule is suppose to be superior to the other.



Again the core rules of 40K games are not vastly complex, its always been their layout and writing and structure that has often resulted in unneeded confusion.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 12:40:53


Post by: Lance845


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, that isn't true at all. GW's rules are no worse than any other ruleset of comparable complexity.


Yeah? Find me another games whos shooting rules just don't work as written. Find me another game with 8 pages of core rules and another 10 in FaQs and errata to make them functional. Find me another game that requires, for clarity of the players, other 30 pages of faq and errata in addition to 3 army books and 1 core book in order to play a single faction.

By comparison, dungeons and dragons PHB has over 300 pages of rules and no FAQ errata and just works while allowing the player significantly more freedom of action within the game. That 1 300 page book is all that required (along with paper and pencils and dice) to have a group of any size play the game.

Or hey, Beyond the Gates of Antares where the rules are written clearly and concisely and don't require a small novela of faqs and errata to play.


If it's not true, provide me some more examples.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 12:45:23


Post by: Overread


In fairness DnD works a lot of the time because its filtered through a DM. If the rule doesn't work or the DM/players can't find the right reference then the DM fixes it for the game. They don't even have to use all the rules and can pick and choose what fits them and their player team.

40K rules are supposed to run without a DM and to be unfiltered; even though in practice they have to be.


Honestly the stripping down to only 8 pages or so I find has simplified things but also leaves issues. There are oddities - eg right now in AoS its possible to shoot through walls so long as you can see a bit of one model from around the edge of the wall. There is some mention that you should check the terrains warscroll to repair this issue but that assumes the terrain you've got has a warscroll and still doesn't fix the underlaying gap in the games mechanics.


I think AoS gets a bit of leeway as people think/hope that the stripdown will slowly be built back up again.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 12:52:36


Post by: barboggo


What's an example of a "competitive"-ish game comparable in scope/complexity to 40k that has really airtight rules?


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 12:55:39


Post by: Overread


Computer games? We could throw those into such a comparison as the rules in those have to work otherwise the game crashes/breaks/glitches.



Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 13:02:01


Post by: barboggo


Apples and oranges.

The big limiting factor with designing something like 40k is testing your design at scale. Computer games (especially the big, complex ones) don't suffer from this problem. With 40k you can't really effectively run simulations, closed alpha, public betas at scale in short time frames. Not only that but collecting good data from things like the Matched Play beta rules is a much slower and arduous process compared to collecting data from a video game. Outside of the VERY limited handful of highly controlled internal test scenarios you have, the data you collect from public sources and things like tournaments is subject to a lot more variables and potential bias. Unlike digital games, tabletop games aren't very good at keeping a thorough/organized record of player input.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 13:05:54


Post by: Overread


True but GW has had 30+ years of running their games and whilst their rules have changed every so often they still run on very similar fundamental components.

I agree that a game can collect far more data and organise it far quicker than a tabletop game can; but over 30 years GW has had the potential to harvest vast bodies of data and should be able to produce a testing system for their rules that at least looks at basic situations and functionality in different ways.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 13:10:14


Post by: barboggo


That's why I'm asking if there is another tabletop company that does it better.

Because you can't just say "well video games are more complicated and have less bugs" when the dev tools associated with them are clearly far more powerful and efficient.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 13:14:43


Post by: Overread


I was under the impression that Warmachine/Hordes managed it quite well - at least the MK2 rules stuck around for a long while and whilst they had some oddities (eg it was better to declare a failed charge than it was to run) the rules "worked" for the most part at a functional level. The greater issue there was more adjusting balance of models around the rules rather than addressing the core rules themselves.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 13:26:01


Post by: Lance845


 Overread wrote:
In fairness DnD works a lot of the time because its filtered through a DM. If the rule doesn't work or the DM/players can't find the right reference then the DM fixes it for the game. They don't even have to use all the rules and can pick and choose what fits them and their player team.

40K rules are supposed to run without a DM and to be unfiltered; even though in practice they have to be.


To be even more fair, the rules don't NEED to be filtered through the DM. Players DO make their own house rules to suit their own style in the same way that the players do for 40k. But just because a game can and does have house rules it doesn't mean anything about the product as sold to the customer. The DnD PHB just works. GWs products don't.


Honestly the stripping down to only 8 pages or so I find has simplified things but also leaves issues. There are oddities - eg right now in AoS its possible to shoot through walls so long as you can see a bit of one model from around the edge of the wall. There is some mention that you should check the terrains warscroll to repair this issue but that assumes the terrain you've got has a warscroll and still doesn't fix the underlaying gap in the games mechanics.


I think AoS gets a bit of leeway as people think/hope that the stripdown will slowly be built back up again.


Those are the LEAST troublesome issues with GWs products. Rules wonkyness is odd and whatever but the real issue is when the logical errors crop up that leave the players with nothing but house rules to keep on playing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote:
Apples and oranges.

The big limiting factor with designing something like 40k is testing your design at scale. Computer games (especially the big, complex ones) don't suffer from this problem. With 40k you can't really effectively run simulations, closed alpha, public betas at scale in short time frames. Not only that but collecting good data from things like the Matched Play beta rules is a much slower and arduous process compared to collecting data from a video game. Outside of the VERY limited handful of highly controlled internal test scenarios you have, the data you collect from public sources and things like tournaments is subject to a lot more variables and potential bias. Unlike digital games, tabletop games aren't very good at keeping a thorough/organized record of player input.


What?

Computer game companies hire a small army of game testers who play the game none stop over years hunting for bugs and fixing them. GW maybe had a couple dozen guys doing it for maybe 6 months without it being their 9-5 job.

GW COULD run extensive play testing and have editors and actual game rules writers working on their products to ensure quality control. They just don't. This isn't a question of limitations of one medium to the other. It's just what GW is willing to do to make a product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote:
That's why I'm asking if there is another tabletop company that does it better.

Because you can't just say "well video games are more complicated and have less bugs" when the dev tools associated with them are clearly far more powerful and efficient.


The dev tools are NOT more powerful and effecient. It's far easier to change a few words around in a word doc then it is to hunt down lines of code and rewrite everything in the string of codes that it might be referencing and might be referencing it.

The more abstract the game the easier it is and less expensive, to make sweeping changes.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 14:11:15


Post by: barboggo


 Lance845 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote:
Apples and oranges.

The big limiting factor with designing something like 40k is testing your design at scale. Computer games (especially the big, complex ones) don't suffer from this problem. With 40k you can't really effectively run simulations, closed alpha, public betas at scale in short time frames. Not only that but collecting good data from things like the Matched Play beta rules is a much slower and arduous process compared to collecting data from a video game. Outside of the VERY limited handful of highly controlled internal test scenarios you have, the data you collect from public sources and things like tournaments is subject to a lot more variables and potential bias. Unlike digital games, tabletop games aren't very good at keeping a thorough/organized record of player input.


What?

Computer game companies hire a small army of game testers who play the game none stop over years hunting for bugs and fixing them. GW maybe had a couple dozen guys doing it for maybe 6 months without it being their 9-5 job.

GW COULD run extensive play testing and have editors and actual game rules writers working on their products to ensure quality control. They just don't. This isn't a question of limitations of one medium to the other. It's just what GW is willing to do to make a product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote:
That's why I'm asking if there is another tabletop company that does it better.

Because you can't just say "well video games are more complicated and have less bugs" when the dev tools associated with them are clearly far more powerful and efficient.


The dev tools are NOT more powerful and effecient. It's far easier to change a few words around in a word doc then it is to hunt down lines of code and rewrite everything in the string of codes that it might be referencing and might be referencing it.

The more abstract the game the easier it is and less expensive, to make sweeping changes.


Obviously it's perfectly simple and straightforward to change words in a word doc and spend money to hire testers to play your game and provide you with detailed feedback. The difference is the quality of feedback you get when doing those things digitally vs non-digitally is not even close to being comparable.

With a video game, you can literally change some code, hit compile, and within a few seconds know if your code is broken or not. You can run a public beta over a weekend and collect the precise input and player experience data of thousands or tens of thousands of users in just a few days, with all of the relevant information organized and compartmentalized for your needs.

With tabletop games that's simply not possible. When you change the specific phrasing in a core rule, you literally have to manually cross check it against every other rule in every other possible scenario that it could possibly relate to. Do you understand how having a script do this or having thousands of beta testers do this over a weekend is easier than doing it manually? That digital feedback is a lot more reliable, sortable, and easy to interpret than things like written testimonials?

It doesn't matter how many people GW hires for their internal QA team, it will never be as robust or thorough as a single day of public beta testing for an online video game. Testing a complex tabletop game system at scale is never going to be as efficient or effective as is the norm for PC games. The two are not even remotely comparable.



Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 14:30:29


Post by: Nurglitch


Maybe it's because I work in banking software rather than gaming software, but I think you're underselling the amount of QA involved in software development. From a tabletop game standpoint it's an incredibly demanding and expensive thing, but it's easier in the sense that players can fix things on the fly by being sensible rather than executing errors in code. One of the best games I've seen for that was Pulp Alley where the designer/developer developed it in tandem with his teenaged daughter's RPG group, so it's pretty munchkin-proof as well as being a damn good game.

With my technical writing hat on, people read manuals when they're frustrated and annoyed because your product isn't intuitive-enough to figure out. But in gaming people read rulebooks to figure out how to play the game in the first place, and for fun(!). I think you need a hook or unified mechanic or something to get players into the rhythm of the game; that's where stuff with cards has an advantage because then you don't have to rely on players trying to remember things as well as cogitate strategies and stuff.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 14:57:08


Post by: barboggo


I'm not saying QA in software isn't a huge part of development and a massive expenditure of resources, time, and energy. I actually do work in the games industry on a dev team and QA is always crazy expensive and time consuming, at all of the companies I've worked at.

We need to hire quality testers who have lots of experience, deep knowledge of efficient testing methodologies, and generally unusually curious or inquisitive personalities. They put in crazy hours testing our products and even then cannot manage to capture every single little thing that could potentially cause problems before we open up a closed alpha.

The closed alpha and subsequent public beta provide orders of magnitude more thorough and reliable feedback and bug testing than our army of internal testers ever will, even if they were working 24/7 for months or years, even with all of the speedhacks and QA tools we give them to simulate test environments and speed up game processes. It will never compare to the power of simply releasing a test build to 10,000 people over the Internet to play the thing for a few hours. That is an insanely powerful tool that GW or any tabletop company won't ever have access to.

Given a hypothetical nightmare scenario where our company doesn't do beta testing, and leaves our internal QA team solely responsible for the entire testing cycle leading up to product launch, I cannot imagine the kinds of horrible, game-breaking bugs our players would complain about upon receiving their games. It doesn't matter how hard QA works, it will never really compare to real world usage.

Tabletop game design exacerbates this issue. Not only is testing slow and completely manual, but you will also never really get a sample size large enough before release that will be as thorough as a software beta. It is simply a matter of digital scaling far more efficiently than analog.

When I compare a tabletop design pipeline with the tools, processes, and data that our designers have access to while designing video games.... yeah tabletop guys got it pretty rough


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 16:34:29


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Lance845 wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, that isn't true at all. GW's rules are no worse than any other ruleset of comparable complexity.


Yeah? Find me another games whos shooting rules just don't work as written. Find me another game with 8 pages of core rules and another 10 in FaQs and errata to make them functional. Find me another game that requires, for clarity of the players, other 30 pages of faq and errata in addition to 3 army books and 1 core book in order to play a single faction.

By comparison, dungeons and dragons PHB has over 300 pages of rules and no FAQ errata and just works while allowing the player significantly more freedom of action within the game. That 1 300 page book is all that required (along with paper and pencils and dice) to have a group of any size play the game.

Or hey, Beyond the Gates of Antares where the rules are written clearly and concisely and don't require a small novela of faqs and errata to play.

If it's not true, provide me some more examples.


ITT a person brings up oranges and bananas and grapes for comparison with an apple.

D&D is a refereed co-op. It's not a competitive head-to-head game. FAIL

BtGoA is not complex, it probably doesn't even have a third the models, nor a tenth the playerbase trying to break it. FAIL

If you want to counterpoint, you need to find a competitive miniatures battle game with as many units and scale of units (Grot to Titan). Saying "refereed co-op works" is obvious. Same with "simple game is clean".

I guarantee if D&D were a head-to-head game between parties, the rules would collapse pretty quickly, because D&D just wasn't written for that. D&D is a narrative game that gets filtered through the DM, and the default result is that the players eventually succeed at some level. The real question is to what extent the players succeed, how quickly, and whether anything special happens while doing so. The social contract is completely different from 40k, and it is a poor comparison point.

In the discussion of software, computer games, a lot of them have errors and bugs and glitches, many of which are exploitable. There doesn't exist a "flawless" non-trivial program - not when the complexity gets high enough. Many are very close, but not provably so, and even so, it's ridiculous amounts of money trying to make them "right".

Rules writing, like programming, is hard, and it's obvious that the current iterations of 40k and Fantasy are about as airtight as GW has ever been. The rules model of having all of the unit rules on one page, and a streamlined core engine is a vast improvement over what came before.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 16:55:07


Post by: Nurglitch


Yup, so let's suppose your QA is as good as it'll get and move on. I don't mean to hand-wave it away, but I mean more about how you would connect QA to audience UX. Plenty of testing scripts include stuff like "what if audience was dumb enough to..."

Another technical writing trick I learned was that the manual didn't need to be all things to all people, just that subset of users that were actually intended to use the product. We could assume, for example, that our audience was literate. We couldn't always assume they were sober or easily capable of turning pages, but we could assume they could read.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 17:30:27


Post by: Easy E


 Nurglitch wrote:


I think you need a hook or unified mechanic or something to get players into the rhythm of the game


This is absolutely true. I am not sure it is relevant to designing for Bad Players, just more of a "relevant to ALL players" point. However, you would be amazed how often games and their designers miss this point.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 17:44:22


Post by: Lance845


barboggo wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote:
Apples and oranges.

The big limiting factor with designing something like 40k is testing your design at scale. Computer games (especially the big, complex ones) don't suffer from this problem. With 40k you can't really effectively run simulations, closed alpha, public betas at scale in short time frames. Not only that but collecting good data from things like the Matched Play beta rules is a much slower and arduous process compared to collecting data from a video game. Outside of the VERY limited handful of highly controlled internal test scenarios you have, the data you collect from public sources and things like tournaments is subject to a lot more variables and potential bias. Unlike digital games, tabletop games aren't very good at keeping a thorough/organized record of player input.


What?

Computer game companies hire a small army of game testers who play the game none stop over years hunting for bugs and fixing them. GW maybe had a couple dozen guys doing it for maybe 6 months without it being their 9-5 job.

GW COULD run extensive play testing and have editors and actual game rules writers working on their products to ensure quality control. They just don't. This isn't a question of limitations of one medium to the other. It's just what GW is willing to do to make a product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote:
That's why I'm asking if there is another tabletop company that does it better.

Because you can't just say "well video games are more complicated and have less bugs" when the dev tools associated with them are clearly far more powerful and efficient.


The dev tools are NOT more powerful and effecient. It's far easier to change a few words around in a word doc then it is to hunt down lines of code and rewrite everything in the string of codes that it might be referencing and might be referencing it.

The more abstract the game the easier it is and less expensive, to make sweeping changes.


Obviously it's perfectly simple and straightforward to change words in a word doc and spend money to hire testers to play your game and provide you with detailed feedback. The difference is the quality of feedback you get when doing those things digitally vs non-digitally is not even close to being comparable.

With a video game, you can literally change some code, hit compile, and within a few seconds know if your code is broken or not. You can run a public beta over a weekend and collect the precise input and player experience data of thousands or tens of thousands of users in just a few days, with all of the relevant information organized and compartmentalized for your needs.

With tabletop games that's simply not possible. When you change the specific phrasing in a core rule, you literally have to manually cross check it against every other rule in every other possible scenario that it could possibly relate to. Do you understand how having a script do this or having thousands of beta testers do this over a weekend is easier than doing it manually? That digital feedback is a lot more reliable, sortable, and easy to interpret than things like written testimonials?

It doesn't matter how many people GW hires for their internal QA team, it will never be as robust or thorough as a single day of public beta testing for an online video game. Testing a complex tabletop game system at scale is never going to be as efficient or effective as is the norm for PC games. The two are not even remotely comparable.



With a video game you cannot just hit a magic compile button and k ow if it works or not. Thats why some video games get released with crash bugs. Sometimes it requires very specific circumstances to trigger errors great and small in code and you need reproduction of those errors to track down what code is actually causing the problem.

Public betas dont find bugs. Public betas are to stress test server code and load. Its too much data otherwise for anyone to sift through.

The rest of what you are saying is nonsense based on the idea that they are using public tests for something they are not doing.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 19:46:21


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Nurglitch wrote:
We could assume, for example, that our audience was literate. We couldn't always assume they were sober or easily capable of turning pages, but we could assume they could read.


Hence, the reason why my unit references are a single sheet, and the playing rules are on two facing pages. No page turning required!


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 21:09:21


Post by: Easy E


But do they know there is a back page! It better have a little over arrow in the corner just in case!



Now I am thinking about if an all pictorial rule set is possible for a decent wargame?


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 21:34:16


Post by: barboggo


 Nurglitch wrote:
Yup, so let's suppose your QA is as good as it'll get and move on. I don't mean to hand-wave it away, but I mean more about how you would connect QA to audience UX. Plenty of testing scripts include stuff like "what if audience was dumb enough to..."

Another technical writing trick I learned was that the manual didn't need to be all things to all people, just that subset of users that were actually intended to use the product. We could assume, for example, that our audience was literate. We couldn't always assume they were sober or easily capable of turning pages, but we could assume they could read.


The way to do it is to really just talk to your audience and take detailed notes on how they behave when you're teaching them the game. You should ask them for direct feedback, but you should also pay attention to how they actually behave while playing because often times they're not fully aware of why they're making the decisions they're making.

In PC games our designers spend a lot of time talking with the QA guys as well as with fresh players from selectively chosen test groups in order to find out where the major hang ups were and what is and isn't working. I have no experience in developing a tabletop game but I can almost guarantee that talking with testers (especially the ones who were least successful/most frustrated) about what their experience was like learning and playing the game is going to be just as important for tabletop as it is for PC games. The worst players in our test sessions often provided the most invaluable feedback, as long as we were generally assured that they were the audience we were designing for. Obviously if your test subject has nothing in common with your target demographic, then they're probably not someone worth taking feedback from and not worth designing for.

But, If you have a bunch former 40k players who are actively interested in pursuing a new tabletop experience such as yours, ie. they want to learn how to play and they want to enjoy a new game, but they're bad and/or frustrated with aspects of the game experience, then most likely there is something real there that is causing a problem. They might have suggestions on how to fix things (which will most likely be wrong because it's not their job to think about design day in/day out) but they will likely help illuminate some aspect of the real underlying issue that can help you identify the problem and address it.

If 3 people in our private test session complained that page 3 of the tutorial UI was confusing then it's probably an issue worth noting. If we don't address it and 15 more people post about it on the public beta feedback forums, then it's probably a pretty big issue that we need to fix. We can also correlate that with statistics on exactly where in the UI flow did the game session end and precisely where, when, and what percentage of users gave up or hit the skip tutorial button.

With tabletop of course you're just going to have to sit there and watch them play and take as many notes as you can. But yeah, if your target demographic isn't able to grasp your game or get good enough at it to enjoy themselves, then there is likely something wrong. The trick is not to take their suggestions as actual solutions, but instead use them to identify the real underlying design problem.

At my old studio we had a motto to "find the fun". As simplistic as it sounds, it really does highlight the primary role of the game developer which is to establish the correct boundaries for the player to be able to get enjoyment out of the game on their own, without having someone sitting next to them explaining to them how to "reach" the fun. That's the equivalent of explaining a joke to someone who didn't get it. Assuming you're sure that this is your target audience, it's the designer's job to figure out what is fun about a particular game system and trim away all the fat and deliver it as quickly and efficiently as possible to the player. Don't make the player have to work for it. Or if there is work involved, then at least the incentive of potential fun down the road must be communicated very quickly to the player before they get frustrated and lose interest in putting in effort to better learn the game.

Also your last point there is really funny . You really do have to assume your audience is kinda dumb, or at least when they're "game" mode many people do prefer to turn off their brains and relax. The moment it starts to feel like work is the moment you lose your audience.

 Lance845 wrote:




With a video game you cannot just hit a magic compile button and k ow if it works or not. Thats why some video games get released with crash bugs. Sometimes it requires very specific circumstances to trigger errors great and small in code and you need reproduction of those errors to track down what code is actually causing the problem.

Public betas dont find bugs. Public betas are to stress test server code and load. Its too much data otherwise for anyone to sift through.

The rest of what you are saying is nonsense based on the idea that they are using public tests for something they are not doing.


You seem to have a lot of secondhand assumptions about how game development works so I'm not even going to try and argue with you.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/05 21:49:27


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Easy E wrote:
I am thinking about if an all pictorial rule set is possible for a decent wargame?


GW's intro pamphlet's can be pretty close, but I think it's a tough challenge. As the game complexity rises for "decent", I'm not sure. I do think it's possible for a small, simple game. KOG light could probably do it.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 07:20:03


Post by: Lance845


barboggo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:




With a video game you cannot just hit a magic compile button and k ow if it works or not. Thats why some video games get released with crash bugs. Sometimes it requires very specific circumstances to trigger errors great and small in code and you need reproduction of those errors to track down what code is actually causing the problem.

Public betas dont find bugs. Public betas are to stress test server code and load. Its too much data otherwise for anyone to sift through.

The rest of what you are saying is nonsense based on the idea that they are using public tests for something they are not doing.


You seem to have a lot of secondhand assumptions about how game development works so I'm not even going to try and argue with you.


No, I have first hand experience with programing, game design, and running tests internally and in "public betas". Internal teams who know how to write an actual bug report are far more reliable for catching actual bugs then 10,000 kids who have no idea what to look for or how to tell you about it in a useful way. On the other hand those 10,000 kids can bombard a near finished product for you and push your hardware and software to a limit for free that's not worth paying 10,000 people to do. Yeah, you give them the option to submit bug reports and yeah something useful might come out of it. But it's few and far between when "professional" testers are so much better organized and it's their actual job.

It's not unlike getting feedback for a piece of art. You have 100 viewers who say something more or less along the lines of "I like it" or "I don't like it" which is great but not especially useful. Or you can get someone who is actually trained for constructive criticism that can tell you how good or bad your composition is, use of negative space, use of color, balance, etc etc...

It's nice to hear from the 100 their general consensus. But I am only really learning what I did wrong and how to improve from the 1.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 09:18:11


Post by: Overread


OMG this game no work I uninstal this company scammers!


Anyone who lurks on steam forums or even steam reviews can read that line and very similar over and over again from gamers - and they are not all young people either. Even just basic info like their computer system or what happened is missing; there's no self troubleshooting (drivers, settings) no mention of any specifics. Heck half the time even when you make a post in the thread requesting that information or that the person at least posts in the tech-support section they don't.


Plus even those who are better at giving info don't go into the game taking notes as they play or keeping a strong mental track record so tis very easy to end up with an error and not actually be able to fully recreate how they got there.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 11:59:35


Post by: Future War Cultist


Quick question; using an alternating unit system for a table top wargame would help trim back the impact of alpha striking and bad luck (or good luck) yes? I’ve lost count of the amount of games I’ve played where it’s over by turn 2 and I’ve done nothing but just stand there and take it.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 12:08:02


Post by: Overread


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Quick question; using an alternating unit system for a table top wargame would help trim back the impact of alpha striking and bad luck (or good luck) yes? I’ve lost count of the amount of games I’ve played where it’s over by turn 2 and I’ve done nothing but just stand there and take it.


Typically yes its one big reason many people like that type of combat. What it enables is the ability to be very reactive and proactive at the same time since each thing you do your opponent can counter or move to adjust to and vis versa. It reduces the impact of a single good turn alpha strike because its broken up and you give the opponent a chance to react to the strikes.

In contrast the whole army turns mean that one player can end up having a turn where they take off a huge portion of the enemy - this hurts hard because it means the opponent has now lost a lot of options all in one go and is playing against an uphill struggle. It's not too bad in a game that relies on grinding attacks - ergo where you strike hard but won't kill a huge amount - but in a game whre you can kill a lot it hurts badly.

In Age of Sigmar it can be worse as its possible to get a double turn which can mean an alpha strike player can have two concurrent turns going first and beating the daylights out of their opponent.



The downside to alternate unit activations is often organisational. It often requires a token or counter for each unit to help keep track of what has and hasn't acted in that turn so in larger games it can get a little confusing working out which units you have and haven't used. Whilst with alternate armies its easier for a player to keep track of what units they have and haven't yet used - mostly because the actions run one to the next without a pause for their opponent to take action.




For this reason you often see alternate army activations in larger games and alternate unit activations in smaller skirmish games


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 12:26:06


Post by: Future War Cultist


Great summary, thanks Overread.

I was once considering a sort of hybrid of the two; think of the way combat works in AoS but for shooting too. Player who’s turn it is picks a unit to shoot with, then the other player does the same and so on and so forth until everyone has shot. It would try to bring the strengths of both systems together (cut down on alpha striking and bad luck, making it quick and easy to do) whilst keeping their weaknesses at a minimum. But I don’t know if it could work.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 13:07:01


Post by: Nurglitch


You could think of it from the other direction. Imagine if, for every choice a player makes, the other player gets to play a counter-move.

My son brought home a little card-game involving Iron Man and Warmachine, where you play three cards face down, and then left-to-right (or right-to-left). If you score the highest card, then you win, lowest you lose, and draw means you can play more cards. Most of the cards have a value from 1-5, and some other cards have a value of 0 and do stuff like multiply your score, or let you keep the cards in the pile if you lose, and so on. Winning 2/3 means you score a point, and all 3/3 means you score two points.

I've played a similar game called Combat Cards (by Tactical Assault), where players had cards with an Action you can assign to a unit, a situation you can play the card in, and a combat result you can draw as the result of an action or situation. If I recall it had the neat effect that you could lower the combat result drawn by one level if you moved an attacked unit directly away from an attacking unit.

The latter really got me thinking about the ways you can tie resources together. The other nice thing about cards is that they can be used to organize and summarize information. They can crunch down a lot of information into a play/pass decision.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 14:28:43


Post by: Zodgrim Dakathug


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Great summary, thanks Overread.

I was once considering a sort of hybrid of the two; think of the way combat works in AoS but for shooting too. Player who’s turn it is picks a unit to shoot with, then the other player does the same and so on and so forth until everyone has shot. It would try to bring the strengths of both systems together (cut down on alpha striking and bad luck, making it quick and easy to do) whilst keeping their weaknesses at a minimum. But I don’t know if it could work.


That's literally how GW's new Kill Team works. Shooting and Fight phases are alternate unit activation, while movement phase is still "I go, you go" meaning whoever has initiative moves all their models first, then the other player(s) move theirs.

There are some extra wrinkles where a model can give up its movement to "Ready", allowing it to shoot first in the shooting phase (before non-Readied models). Likewise, models that charged - charging happens in the movement phase, by the way - get to fight before other models that are within 1" of enemy models (aka "in melee combat").

There are additional details and nuance, overall it's a very fun and interesting system that departs in a meaningful way from regular 40k. I'm loving it.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 15:13:15


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Quick question; using an alternating unit system for a table top wargame would help trim back the impact of alpha striking and bad luck (or good luck) yes?

I’ve lost count of the amount of games I’ve played where it’s over by turn 2 and I’ve done nothing but just stand there and take it.


No, the reduction in game size/density, along with an increase in meaningful terrain would trim back the Turn 1 "problem". If players were still playing 40k 2E model counts, alpha strike wouldn't be an issue. Even at 3E model counts, probably still not an issue in most cases. By 7E / 8E, it's out of control. Dial back to 1000 points, and increase the terrain, and most of it sorts out.

If you are consistently losing on turn 1, you need to rethink your deployment strategy.

Alternating activation is a bandaid that doesn't scale well to something like 7E / 8E model counts, either. You end up with very slow rounds, and a lot of bookkeeping to know what has/hasn't activated each turn.

Within the 40k construct, some form of simultaneous combat, or reaction fire is sufficient to "solve" the problem - turning shooting into something a half step closer to melee.

In KOG light, I incorporate the AoS double turn, high lethality, and unlimited range, but I also scale at a small skirmish, with an emphasis on LoS-blocking terrain a la Infinity, and there are opportunities to shoot back as reaction fire. It's fast and furious, and the game has a very different texture than 40k.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 17:05:57


Post by: Easy E


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Quick question; using an alternating unit system for a table top wargame would help trim back the impact of alpha striking and bad luck (or good luck) yes? I’ve lost count of the amount of games I’ve played where it’s over by turn 2 and I’ve done nothing but just stand there and take it.


How units interact via activation and turn sequence is one of the most interesting and important aspects of wargame design to me. There are so many ways to do it! The only way to really get a good grasp on activation mechanics is to go out and read about and play lots, and lots of games. There is so much more out there than alternate activation.

I remember first reading the Action/reaction mechanics in Force-on-Force and my mind was asploded! It opened my eyes to a world of so many possibilities. Then Infinity and others kept pushing the idea of action/reaction forward. I don't know which came first but I know which ones I have read and in what order.

Off the top of my head, for activation there is:

IGOUGO
Alternate Activation
Alternating Phases
Initiative Order
Act/React
Act by Turn Order
Push-your-luck
Act based on unit type
Random draw
Initiative by bid
Interrupts

I am sure there are many more. However, there is also variations that combine one or more styles or mix the two. Such as IGOUGO with an Overwatch mechanic.

So much flavor and style you can add to your game by seriously thinking thorough your activation and turn sequence mechanics.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 17:27:54


Post by: JohnHwangDD


It's really a question of how you want your game to play. What should it feel like. If you want the feel that AA provides, go for it. Just recognize that each mechanic has strengths and weaknesses, and select accordingly.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/06 17:32:41


Post by: barboggo


Zodgrim Dakathug wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Great summary, thanks Overread.

I was once considering a sort of hybrid of the two; think of the way combat works in AoS but for shooting too. Player who’s turn it is picks a unit to shoot with, then the other player does the same and so on and so forth until everyone has shot. It would try to bring the strengths of both systems together (cut down on alpha striking and bad luck, making it quick and easy to do) whilst keeping their weaknesses at a minimum. But I don’t know if it could work.


That's literally how GW's new Kill Team works. Shooting and Fight phases are alternate unit activation, while movement phase is still "I go, you go" meaning whoever has initiative moves all their models first, then the other player(s) move theirs.

There are some extra wrinkles where a model can give up its movement to "Ready", allowing it to shoot first in the shooting phase (before non-Readied models). Likewise, models that charged - charging happens in the movement phase, by the way - get to fight before other models that are within 1" of enemy models (aka "in melee combat").

There are additional details and nuance, overall it's a very fun and interesting system that departs in a meaningful way from regular 40k. I'm loving it.


Kill Team's an interesting example because it often seems to favor going 2nd in as many scenarios as going first. Going first helps if your dudes are well within shooting range or if you are in near-guaranteed charge so you can kill them first, while going 2nd helps if you're just barely within shooting/charge range and can use your extra bit of repositioning to gain an advantage.

I need to think about it more, but I distinctly remember the feeling of often not wanting to win the roll off every turn in a lot of scenarios. Having an initiative roll at the beginning of every turn was certainly a good change of pace. But we did often feel that each turn was largely decided by whether or not the initiative corresponded with what your KT was planning to do that turn. Alternating activations is definitely fun and more engaging, and probably less "swingy" too, but even then whoever got the more useful initiative roll (either going 1st or 2nd depending on what you were trying to do) always seemed to come out on top after combat.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/10 18:18:36


Post by: Nurglitch


I was mucking around with Into the Breach, a turn-based roguelike where you can practically hear the computer-gnomes rolling dice, and it occurred to me that it both really rewards successful play and punishes weak play. I was thinking about it the other way around, since that would be friendlier, but I can't figure out whether that would be fun since (a) roguelike games are supposed to be punishing, and (b) how much razzmatazz would you need to make up for such a squishy gaming experience?


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/10 19:03:00


Post by: JohnHwangDD


I looked up Into the Breach - is it Roguelike? At least, it doesn't look like Rogue / Nethack / Moria ... Diablo / Gold Box.

From what I see, ItB is a pure strategy campaign, where you're effectively solving Roborally puzzles with Syndicate / Xcom agents.

Anyhow, the reason it strongly rewards success and punishes weakness is a near total lack of randomness when you make your moves in reaction to enemy plans. The campaign cascades each little thing onward.

As I noted earlier, GW's 40k Maelstrom is opposite, where high randomness mitigates skill. If you want newbies to win, you need to be more Fortnite (where lucky Crits insta-kill), than PUBG (where you need to manually compensate for bullet drop and recoil).


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/11 15:12:33


Post by: ValentineGames


What is defined as a "bad player"?
To whom do we measure the standard of a "good player"?


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/11 16:49:57


Post by: Nurglitch


It's not a great definition, but I think defining 'bad players' as those that will somehow make bad moves it a good enough definition. A bad player will look at a game, make a boneheaded move, and then be annoyed when the results of that boneheaded move become more apparent.

So far solutions are making the game simpler (so fewer boneheaded moves), the rules more transparent (so boneheaded moves are easier to spot), and the resolution squishier (so boneheaded moves aren't so painful).


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/11 20:18:56


Post by: Easy E


So, basically I have to design games for people like me!


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/11 20:31:22


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Easy E wrote:
So, basically I have to design games for people like me!


Actually, you need to design games for people who are less than yourself. Less time to learn and master the game, less memory and familiarization. Blind playtest with new players is fantastic, watching them try to puzzle through the process of setting up a game, defining strategic objective(s), and playing complete rounds with full turns.

As I find myself with less free time to devote to various things, I appreciate simple games far better than I used to, which is why I've been on a huge streamlining kick for the past several years. I'm simply unable to play something like 40k competitively, to say nothing of the previous version with its myriad of rules. Make the game simple and clear, and the complexity can come from decision-making with clear results. "Chess-like" is what I aspire toward.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/11 21:30:35


Post by: Easy E


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
So, basically I have to design games for people like me!


Actually, you need to design games for people who are less than yourself. Less time to learn and master the game, less memory and familiarization. Blind playtest with new players is fantastic, watching them try to puzzle through the process of setting up a game, defining strategic objective(s), and playing complete rounds with full turns.

As I find myself with less free time to devote to various things, I appreciate simple games far better than I used to, which is why I've been on a huge streamlining kick for the past several years. I'm simply unable to play something like 40k competitively, to say nothing of the previous version with its myriad of rules. Make the game simple and clear, and the complexity can come from decision-making with clear results. "Chess-like" is what I aspire toward.


That's even more depressing. That there could be people who would make bigger mistakes and more bonehead plays! :(


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/11 21:55:53


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Interesting reaction, and not at all what I had intended. It's just a bigger challenge, and the way I'd frame it is "a game a child could learn, but for an adult to master"


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/12 14:39:53


Post by: Ouze


 Nurglitch wrote:
Lately I've been involved in discussions about how to address bad players in games.


I think you decide it's too much work and make them play something else by themselves.

bmmm-tissss


 Nurglitch wrote:
I've noticed, particularly in tournaments (maybe because I'm concentrating on the winning conditions), that players will forget about winning the game and just try to destroy the opposing army. So maybe the rules can be explained, but there's too many steps in the game between players doing something and players scoring points.


Interesting example, because I had a friend who would do this. He would never capture points and would reliably lose.

I would point out, after he lost, that the game doesn't reward destroying units as a win condition as much as he seemed to think that it did. So, perhaps the scenario rules can make that more clear what win condition is.



Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/12 21:36:06


Post by: ValentineGames


 Nurglitch wrote:
It's not a great definition, but I think defining 'bad players' as those that will somehow make bad moves it a good enough definition.

So...everyone is a bad player.
Because everyone makes bad moves...everyone makes mistakes. It's how humans work.

So "good" players is a self imposed mythical statement?


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/12 23:05:45


Post by: JohnHwangDD


ValentineGames wrote:
So...everyone is a bad player.
Because everyone makes bad moves...everyone makes mistakes. It's how humans work.

So "good" players is a self imposed mythical statement?


Not exactly. People will make sub-optimal moves, especially when elements of chance are involved, but that's very different from a "bad" move that is incorrect or detrimental. "Good" players exist, making no errors, and very few moves that are likely to turn out badly. It's the difference between losing to bad luck and bad play.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/13 09:12:11


Post by: ValentineGames


Yeah I call bull on that. A player who makes NO errors? Bollocks if that exists


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/13 10:30:16


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Git gud then


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/17 13:02:26


Post by: Nurglitch


The progression from bad to good certainly seems like a matter of degree rather than a binary state.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/18 02:43:36


Post by: Cheesecat


ValentineGames wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
It's not a great definition, but I think defining 'bad players' as those that will somehow make bad moves it a good enough definition.

So...everyone is a bad player.
Because everyone makes bad moves...everyone makes mistakes. It's how humans work.

So "good" players is a self imposed mythical statement?


When I'm playing games the good players are me and the bad ones are everyone else.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/21 14:39:57


Post by: ValentineGames


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Git gud then

git
ɡɪt/
nounINFORMAL•BRITISH
an unpleasant or contemptible person.
"that mean old git"

I'm confused by why I need a "git"


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/25 01:01:34


Post by: Nurglitch


'Git' in American Slanglish is a verb, to develop or become.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/25 16:33:06


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Dude, you can just look it up...

https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/git-gud/


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/25 20:27:31


Post by: ValentineGames


sarcasm
ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"she didn't like the note of sarcasm in his voice"
synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, satire, irony, scorn, sneering, scoffing, gibing, taunting; More


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/26 19:20:05


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Sure, OK. :eyeroll:


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/26 19:47:12


Post by: Nurglitch


Something I read recently, possibly on here, was that a good player was one that cared to do the work of preparing to do well at the game, whereas a bad player was one that didn't care.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/26 21:29:28


Post by: JohnHwangDD


That's fair - if they're willing to read the rulebook and the mission, that's a good sign that they're interested in playing correctly and playing well


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/28 01:30:17


Post by: Nurglitch


I feel like a game needs a hook.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/28 04:16:54


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Every game needs a hook, although, it's a little baffling what constitutes a *good* hook, particularly when it's to be rooted in some sort of gameplay mechanic or strategy.

Lately, Horizon Zero Dawn has caught my eye on Kickstarter (though it ends tomorrow). Presumably, the "hook" is the biomechanical beasts, but for whatever reason, the gameplay seems uninspiring. At first glance, it's like a superlight version of Kingdom Death: Monster, a game that I enjoy. It's clean, it's streamlined, it's quick, and it's smooth. But it seems like there's very little (much too little) decision-making or planning to do. Maybe they cut too far?

OTOH, I think about KOG light, and whether it even has a "hook", despite being highly derivative, using the models and many stats from another game. Or whether it's just a really clean little skirmish game.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/28 16:27:34


Post by: Nurglitch


I don't think you really want weighty decision-making or planning in a co-op game. I'm not really a co-op player, but looking at other people's co-op games has been educational in terms of what I'm supposed to be giving feedback about. Insofar as I can tell co-op games need to be simple enough that the max number of players can agree on a course of action without experienced players taking over, and players don't skip on stuff. The hook seems to be the established/successful video game, but shareable around a table.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/28 19:37:16


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Curious, but isn't D&D a refereed co-op? OTOH, are the decisions in D&D that deep? Hm.

I look at KD:M, and there is LOT of planning & decision-making. It's fairly weighty, but I think most of that is in the Settlement phase, as you decide how to best configure the team and prepare the settlement, given the resources available. There is a fair bit of tactics coordination during the Hunt, and there's a lot of detail there; I think there's enough variety and surprise that it feels like more is happening, even if the decision tree isn't that deep. I am willing to accept KD:M as an exception that proves the rule.

Maybe the common mechanical hook is presenting the player with multiple meaningful choices, with multiple routes to accomplish them? HZD has a couple choices, but very few ways to do them, so there isn't the apperance of agency. Or it could be that I'm comparing unfairly?


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/29 02:42:12


Post by: Nurglitch


I'm not sure the mechanics are really a hook. Which isn't to say there arent, but something needs to catch person's attention and give them confidence that it's worth their time and attention before they try it.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/29 03:39:25


Post by: JohnHwangDD


We start with an assumption that the world and minis are acceptable, but merely having cool minis won't necessarily bring you back to the table. Super Dungeon Explore kinda proves that, where the minis are great, but the gameplay is awful. So something in the gameplay, the gaming experience has to be the hook.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/09/29 05:47:52


Post by: Lance845


Agreed. Especially since its SO easy to just substitute a proxy model you like better that is roughly the correct size. The game needs to be fun. And preferably opponents available.

Example: I think bolt action is a FAR better game then 40k. And Konflikt 47 is an amazing weird war ii setting with really neat stuff. But i have noone to play with out here. So i dont buy it.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/01 07:52:46


Post by: barboggo


For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/02 03:57:45


Post by: Lance845


barboggo wrote:
For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.


You do realize, of course, that 40k is both a bad game and barely holding together via volumes of FAQ and errata, without which, it would be very difficult to call it even a functional game?


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/02 12:21:04


Post by: Nurglitch


 Lance845 wrote:
barboggo wrote:
For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.


You do realize, of course, that 40k is both a bad game and barely holding together via volumes of FAQ and errata, without which, it would be very difficult to call it even a functional game?

It's pretty impressive especially if you think 40k is a bad game, as it pulls in and holds players regardless. I'd love to fail that badly.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/02 13:09:09


Post by: Lance845


 Nurglitch wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
barboggo wrote:
For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.


You do realize, of course, that 40k is both a bad game and barely holding together via volumes of FAQ and errata, without which, it would be very difficult to call it even a functional game?

It's pretty impressive especially if you think 40k is a bad game, as it pulls in and holds players regardless. I'd love to fail that badly.


It is impressive but also explainable.

Right now WE are well aware of how many other games are on the market. But somebody who does not play wargames in general is not. There are no big standees promoting bolt action. There are no shelves in a store promoting it. Nobody has a display for deadzones. 40k can afford it's marketing so 40k is the only one that really gets marketed. Couple that with the cost and time investment and it's difficult for most players who start in 40k (because it's all they knew about) to justify playing anything else when it's 1) harder to get and 2) WAY harder to find opponents for. No reason to buy into a game you can't actually play.

It's less that GW has failed that successfully and more that all it's far more competently made competition has failed to market themselves properly and truely build their player base.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/02 13:49:08


Post by: Nurglitch


 Lance845 wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
barboggo wrote:
For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.


You do realize, of course, that 40k is both a bad game and barely holding together via volumes of FAQ and errata, without which, it would be very difficult to call it even a functional game?

It's pretty impressive especially if you think 40k is a bad game, as it pulls in and holds players regardless. I'd love to fail that badly.


It is impressive but also explainable.

Right now WE are well aware of how many other games are on the market. But somebody who does not play wargames in general is not. There are no big standees promoting bolt action. There are no shelves in a store promoting it. Nobody has a display for deadzones. 40k can afford it's marketing so 40k is the only one that really gets marketed. Couple that with the cost and time investment and it's difficult for most players who start in 40k (because it's all they knew about) to justify playing anything else when it's 1) harder to get and 2) WAY harder to find opponents for. No reason to buy into a game you can't actually play.

It's less that GW has failed that successfully and more that all it's far more competently made competition has failed to market themselves properly and truly build their player base.

Maybe. That ties back to making the game appealing. I don't find WWII wargaming appealing. I'm not sure how anyone could make a WWII game appealing enough that I'd actually want to play it, let alone encourage others to play it with me.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/02 22:26:24


Post by: Lance845


And if it was only wwii games then you would be on to something. But 40k is not the only sci fi game on the market and AoS is not the only fantasy game on the market. So where is all of that?


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/03 00:16:29


Post by: barboggo


Not going to argue that 40k is a good game in a mechanical sense, but as an ecosystem it is actually the perfect vehicle for delivering a thematically rich experience that a lot of people want.

I'm not much of a wargamer so it's likely that some of the other games you mentioned aren't really targeting me. A quick google of Bolt Action and Deadzone shows me that they're both products that are going for a more straightforward take on their themes without any kind of twist. Classic sci-fi and WWII. For a dedicated wargaming fan perhaps that is enough of a hook. For mass mainstream appeal though it probably needs more.

The artwork looks serviceable but not particularly inspiring. If the artwork (including minis) and presentation were really phenomenal that might be enough of a hook to sell the theme. Something like Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is a good example of how to make a fairly straightforward theme/scenario feel stylistically fresh and compelling to the mainstream.

Based on what I've heard it sounds like the mechanical aspects of these games and their rules are likely much more tightly designed than 40k, whose rules are probably kind of a sprawling mess by comparison. To be honest, whenever I feel the urge to find a tighter and more "balanced" board/tabletop game experience, one of the first things I look for is mediocre art. Usually the art won't exactly be bad since those games will have had some measure of success in order to stay afloat (and success usually buys okay art at least), but it is very rare that we see anything approaching the quality of worldbuilding and IP development that is immediately perceptible in 40k.

It ultimately comes down to a few things. 40k has an incredibly compelling setting with great lore, awesome art, fantastic miniatures, and a tabletop game where you get to see all of that stuff play out in real life.

When everything else is so good, the game part of it only needs to be just functional enough as a platform for delivering the art/setting, hopefully in a way that doesn't get too repetitive or simplistic too quickly. That is why tabletop purists might look down on 40k and why 40k has greater mass appeal than any other game. Other games with very tight rulesets may be the perfect experience for hardcore tabletop gamers but meanwhile 40k is drawing in players who initially may have only been interested in the art or the lore. Now if 40k was ONLY art/lore then that would be a problem because at that point as a product category it will be competing against other products that are only art/lore, like graphic novels or books or I dunno, point and click adventure games or something. The game part of it, as mediocre as it is, is what makes 40k stand out. The fact that 40k has incredible setting, top notch art direction, great miniatures, and a good enough game where it combines all of those strengths into one epic tabletop session, that, is what gives it that powerful, unique value proposition compared to all of its competitors.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/03 04:07:45


Post by: Lance845


You are welcome to your opinion.

But 40k the game does not do a good job of making you feel like you are experiencing the lore of 40k. It does a good job of playing long, drawn out, slogs in which players take turns swinging a massive club that is their entire army at each other while the other person looks at their phone until they have to roll ineffectual overwatch or make some armor saves.

I have never seen someone be fully engrossed in the game by turn 3 when it's not their turn. Especially during the movement phase. The game is designed to go for 2 or 3 more turns AFTER that point. That doesn't sound epic, or like the exciting stories, or like anything most people would want to dedicate many hours of their day doing. As big as 40k is it's still a tiny niche hobby mostly because of how inaccessible and bad of an experience it is for the larger population.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/03 06:04:13


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Lance845 wrote:
But 40k the game does not do a good job of making you feel like you are experiencing the lore of 40k.


Amusingly, 40k does an incomprehensibly better job of being 40k than Bolt Action does of simulating any sort of WW2. I always chuckle when anybody thinks BA is a "good" game, when it's probably the most obviously gamey WW2 game out there. Garbage sim.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/03 08:10:36


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Is it sold as a WW2 sim or as a game themed on WW2 though?

Almost nobody cares to play sims these days, they are too complex and complicated, tracking too many things, themed games on the other hand can be good games if they convey the proper feeling.

GW games always historically had issues in bringing the fluff they had for their world on the tabletop, I really do not know about the last editions of both their main games.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/03 17:07:41


Post by: JohnHwangDD


The intro blurb from the manufacturer says:

World War II Wargaming

From Blitzkrieg to North Africa, from the Russian Front to the D-Day Landings, Bolt Action puts YOU in command of the most brutal and famous battles of the Second World War.

Assemble and paint your brave men and armoured tanks, field them on a table-top battlefield, and use all your strategy, cunning and luck to defeat your opponent.


It's clearly marketed as a simulation, placing YOU in the actual battles of WW2.

Their Store sells D-Day's Pegasus Bridge, and yet the scale is obviously wrong:

http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2017/04/wargame-design-futility-of-realistic.html

While it may not be a hard sim, a WW2 game should at least model the basics of rifle fire


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/03 19:18:41


Post by: Nurglitch


 Lance845 wrote:
You are welcome to your opinion.

But 40k the game does not do a good job of making you feel like you are experiencing the lore of 40k. It does a good job of playing long, drawn out, slogs in which players take turns swinging a massive club that is their entire army at each other while the other person looks at their phone until they have to roll ineffectual overwatch or make some armor saves.

I have never seen someone be fully engrossed in the game by turn 3 when it's not their turn. Especially during the movement phase. The game is designed to go for 2 or 3 more turns AFTER that point. That doesn't sound epic, or like the exciting stories, or like anything most people would want to dedicate many hours of their day doing. As big as 40k is it's still a tiny niche hobby mostly because of how inaccessible and bad of an experience it is for the larger population.

My experience of 40k is different. I viscerally enjoy the game and I've tried to put some thought into why I jones for it. I find it difficult to record a game, particularly past turn 2 or so because by that point I'm pretty invested in the action.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/03 20:10:39


Post by: JohnHwangDD


40k has been tailored to MAKE THINGS HAPPEN!!!1!11! It's paced like a summer action movie, not an English drama.

Bolt Action purports to be 1/56 scale, but it clearly is not. The basic infantryman carries a rifle with an effective range of at least 300m - just under 1,000 feet, which scales to over 17 feet on the tabletop. SMGs are accurate out to 50 meters, which would still translate into about 36" on the tabletop. It is not possible to suspend disbelief when the ground scale is so far off from the model scale, which makes it a very poor WW2 game precisely because the simulation gets so much wrong.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/03 21:26:50


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Frankly I do not see anything alluding to realism or simulation in this marketing pitch.

40K in my opinion, is made to sell a massive collection of models, how ridiculous they die and how unfaithful their battlefield behaviour is to the lore is irrelevant as far as the system goes.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/03 22:13:36


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Frankly I do not see anything alluding to realism or simulation in this marketing pitch.

40K in my opinion, is made to sell a massive collection of models, how ridiculous they die and how unfaithful their battlefield behaviour is to the lore is irrelevant as far as the system goes.


Dude, if they specifically say that their game intends to put you right in an actual, real-world battle that happened, then that is a simulation pitch. They went out of their way to specify Blitzkrieg, North Africa, D-Day and the Russian Front. OTOH, if they had said "Play games of make-believe battles that have absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened in World War 2, aside from the ghoulish skin that we've draped over an aging husk of 40k", then you would be correct.

As for how 40k behaves, it's more accurate to the game universe than Bolt Action is to the real world.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/04 00:12:47


Post by: PsychoticStorm


This does not mean they intent to take you into a simulation of the actual battles.

"Heroes of Normandy" and "memoir 44" can claim the exact same line and they are neither close to simulation of reality.

They give you the armies in these battles the rules to play these battles and the models to represent the troops for these battles, maybe even scenarios for specific battles, they can be true to their word without ever touching the simulation of reality scenario.

Now if they had wrote something along the line of "making you experience the full experience of WW2 combat in unparalleled realism", yeah I would call them on everything unrealistic they have in the system.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/04 02:15:47


Post by: barboggo


Yeah I can only talk about 40k and how my friends and I experience it really. Whether or not everyone else experiences it the same way is up to the individual. I was just pointing out some pretty clear differences between 40k and other systems that may account for its continued popularity and dominance in the tabletop scene.

"Gameplay is king" is a good mantra to go with when designing games (a play on Pixar's classic "story is king" mantra) but it's certainly not the only factor in making a successful product. I think this is especially apparent when we come back to the subject of this topic, which is designing for bad players, or rather how to get mechanically "bad" players to like your game.

In a game like 40k, lots of people just want to have a good time and play with toy soldiers and roll some dice. They're not playing ultra optimized competitive lists and could probably care less about whether or not it's balanced or even whether or not they win. They'd be as invested in winning a game of 40k as they'd be invested in winning a game of Monopoly or something. It's more about the unique experience of immersing yourself in the setting with a bunch of sweet physical models and getting to watch some of their fluff play out on the tabletop.

Game design is certainly a huge, huge aspect of it, but like most of you I don't think the game on it's own is anything close to approaching a tightly thought-out, nuanced system. But with a tabletop game you have many other tools available to you to get people engaged and 40k is certainly an example of one that plays to the strengths of the format.

If you took everything out of 40k and reduced it to just the handful of units/models/gameplay interactions that exist in the current iteration of the competitive meta, it would probably be a complete failure of a product. Lucky for GW shareholders, they have a lot more to offer to their audience than just "competitive 40k".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One more thought on the mechanical design of a game: designing for balance and accessibility is generally always going to be a high priority, but it's not always necessarily the ultimate goal.

When you have access to the quality of IP source material that GW has (not to mention their super talented team of writers and artists), designing mechanics that best leverage that IP probably actually supersedes designing mechanics that produce deep gameplay. You can engage a "bad" player by giving them other ways to be "good", such as being a good painter or being someone who's great at making awesome themed armies or someone who gets really creative with conversions or even making terrain. Even if they suck at the competitive side of the game, you can still design in different vectors for them to engage and be creative and "succeed" in their own ways. Consider that 40k is a game where painting/modeling-focused gamers can engage with narrative gamers and can engage with competitive gamers all under one ruleset.

It doesn't have to be a game designed exclusively for Spikes. For mass appeal you want to make sure your Timmys and Johnnys also have something substantial to engage with.

Source on the terms:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2002-03-08


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/04 03:58:05


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
This does not mean they intent to take you into a simulation of the actual battles.

"Heroes of Normandy" and "memoir 44" can claim the exact same line and they are neither close to simulation of reality.

They give you the armies in these battles the rules to play these battles and the models to represent the troops for these battles, maybe even scenarios for specific battles, they can be true to their word without ever touching the simulation of reality scenario.

Now if they had wrote something along the line of "making you experience the full experience of WW2 combat in unparalleled realism", yeah I would call them on everything unrealistic they have in the system.


Actually, that is *exactly* what it means in plain English (I understand that your English is marginal, but far better than my Greek).

I have not played "Heroes of Normandy", so I cannot comment on that, but I have played Memoir '44 extensively, and it is easily the best WW2 simulation game of the lot. M'44 is at a higher level of abstraction where range is not unreasonably scaled, command is fairly sensible, and strategy works. M'44 is far superior to Flames of War, to say nothing of the nonsense garbage that is Bolt Action. M'44 has a number of WW2 scenarios tied to actual WW2 battles, and they play pretty true to what one might expect, being well-balanced and full of tension.

It seems that you don't have a clear understanding of what "realistic" and "simulation" actually mean. Realistic means that the game has features and rules that tie to reality, something that M'44 does far better than BA. M'44 is also a better simulation than BA because strategy and tactics matter, along with the psychology of command - something that Warhammerish games just don't get. When a game that purports to be a WW2 game fails some very basic checks tied to the reality that it's supposed to represent, it's a bad game, simple as that.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/04 10:44:44


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Thanks, I do not feel my English is marginal though, but I can agree that they need improving in everyday conversations, something I work on.

For me at no point in the marketing speech you quoted, they claim the words simulation, or realistic, or imply the game delivers anything true to life, I feel there is some bias when you read this quote, putting more in a game system you already feel is already bad.

As I said above they claim they put you in command of the most brutal and famous battles of WW2, they do not claim they do that in a realistic way, or a simulation way.

I can understand the expectation that since it is a historical setting it must be as close to reality as to can be, but to be honest it is not a requirement, if it conveys the feel well for the majority of consumers then it is fine.

I can understand your comments and your disengagement such mechanics give you given your expectations, but for me at least they never claimed to be a game simulating reality just a game that puts yo in WW2 and for most people it does just that.

Now for the realistic and simulation debate, I understand English is a language were a word can mean several things, but in wargames, I feel and I can be wrong,that particularly in wargaming, we use realistic for game systems that feel real and simulation for game systems that try to portray reality as accurate as it can be.

In that assumption bolt action can be realistic in the general sense but not a simulation, likewise Memoir 44 is quite realistic but I would not call them a simulation.

To end up positively something we both agree, Memoir 44 is indeed a far superior system to bolt action.

I would say try and watch some heroes of Normandy gameplay it has many good design ideas in it, nothing ground breaking, but many things nicely connected in an interesting system.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/04 16:07:41


Post by: JohnHwangDD


OK, that's fair. I might look in to HoN, although I'm sufficiently well-satisfied with M'44 that I'm not actually hungry for another WW2 game. We were actually very hopeful for FoW, but that just didn't work out.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/05 08:12:01


Post by: ValentineGames


 Lance845 wrote:
You are welcome to your opinion.

But 40k the game does not do a good job of making you feel like you are experiencing the lore of 40k. It does a good job of playing long, drawn out, slogs in which players take turns swinging a massive club that is their entire army at each other while the other person looks at their phone until they have to roll ineffectual overwatch or make some armor saves.

I have never seen someone be fully engrossed in the game by turn 3 when it's not their turn. Especially during the movement phase. The game is designed to go for 2 or 3 more turns AFTER that point. That doesn't sound epic, or like the exciting stories, or like anything most people would want to dedicate many hours of their day doing. As big as 40k is it's still a tiny niche hobby mostly because of how inaccessible and bad of an experience it is for the larger population.

So extremely true.
I'll stick to Bolt Action and Black Powder if I want something fun and engaging.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/05 10:11:13


Post by: PsychoticStorm


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, that's fair. I might look in to HoN, although I'm sufficiently well-satisfied with M'44 that I'm not actually hungry for another WW2 game. We were actually very hopeful for FoW, but that just didn't work out.


I suggest you look into HoN from a design perspective, it is definitely more "gamie" than Memoir 44 but I do feel the overall game system has many good ideas and interactions to study as a designer.


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/08 18:19:30


Post by: Easy E


I agree on the "Hook" element that we were talking about. However, the nature of the "Hook" is the trick and can be very different from game to game.

The Hook can be the setting, the rules, the models, the battlefield interactions etc. This is a great topic on its own, but let's look at some "popular" mini lines and see if we can find the "Hook"?


Designing for Bad Players @ 2018/10/09 14:53:33


Post by: Nurglitch


In board games it's easier to find the hook because the game is usually built around it. Miniature games are harder because there's more genre expectations, and the product being sold tends to have more distance from the rules.