Switch Theme:

Game Design Discussion- Meaningful Choices  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Greetings fellow designers,

Frequently, we talk about how to create choice in our games. However, it was less clear to me about what does that even mean in the context of Game Design.

More importantly, how do you make a choice meaningful as opposed to a "no-choice". A "No Choice" is basically an option a player will always use when it is available, such as shooting in the shooting phase of 40K. There is no reason NOT to shoot.

So, I struggled and tried to put down some thoughts on how to create an actual meaningful choice in a wargame here:

https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2021/05/wargame-design-creating-meaningful.html

I decided on the following equation:
(Positive Outcomes / Negative Impacts) + Downstream Impacts to the Game = Meaningful Choice

Your thoughts?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





There's a strong epistemic component - where one player can see far enough ahead to see how the different options will play out, and another who won't, and they'll give different opinions of what sort of choice they had.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






This is a good point of discussion. I've been moving onto thoughts of how to win the game with my one, and this lends itself to the same decision - which in general I would boil down to "why not just kill them all".

One thought is to make objectives have momentum. Once one side gains the upper hand they can put their time into shooting rather than "objectiving", and the opponent would need to act quickly to stop the battle from being lost. This seems a bit crap to be honest, as one player gets the upper hand and then the other ones are on the back foot for the next part of the game.

The option I've already adopted for the damage & suppression works with my delayed damage mechanics and allows you to spend action points (which you need to do things like move, shoot etc.) on removing damage cards instead. This means when you activate a unit, you know that they have taken this many cards (but don't know how much damage they are actually going to take), and can take a gamble on spending your AP offensively and hope to survive, or spend your AP being suppressed (and thus removing the damage cards), sacrificing your offensive capabilities in exchange for a better chance of survival.

This (to my mind) can present a meaningful decision for the player when it's combined with objectives which have time limits - for example, if one side wants to demolish a building, a unit might have to weigh up trying to survive against having to get to the building and deactivate the explosive. That's how I intend to get decisions being made.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




I know this isn't exactly an answer, but me and my wife are currently replaying Divinity 2 (best split-screen co-op game ever) and the combat system there is a work of art. So many viable options each turn with everything being important - positioning, order of activation, planning how to use every action point, using appropriate attacks against certain opponents to maxmise effectiveness, using the environment. You can get a lot of things right or wrong at every step and there's a whole world of options between the best and the worst solution for a given situation.


In my opinion every designer who wonders what an excellently designed, choice-driven combat system looks like shoud definitely play Divinity 2 and see for him/herself.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/23 10:49:49


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Video game?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yes*. The board game hasn't been released yet and I'm not sure if it will incorporate anything akin to the turn based combat of the original.

*-best split-screen co-op game ever

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/24 15:56:12


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I wanted to make sure I processed that right. I will need to look into it.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Here's an interesting article I google'd up:

https://guides.gamepressure.com/originalsinII/guide.asp?ID=37396
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





Cyel wrote:
In my opinion every designer who wonders what an excellently designed, choice-driven combat system looks like shoud definitely play Divinity 2 and see for him/herself.
High telekinesis and a box full of boxes :p
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

Looking back the opening question of "Meaningful Choice", I'd add that there can be a tendency among designers to want to make all options equally meaningful all of the time.

But, just taking the 40k shooting option example as a starting point, sometimes "no-brainer" choices are entirely reasonable and thematic. 40k is almost as far from a simulationist approach to sci-fi warfare as you can get, but it's fair to say that, in the environment they seek to convey, there would really be no reason to not shoot at your enemy if you had the chance.

"Real world" limiters on the decision to open fire on an enemy are:

1. Limited ammunition.
2. Giving away a concealed position.
3. Rules of engagement.

As none of those really apply in a 40k setting, I'd say it was fair enough.

I decided against having limited ammunition in Horizon Wars: Zero Dark because it tends to come down to being a choice between tedious book-keeping (Battletech) or randomness (Necromunda) and neither of those strikes me as a useful addition to a miniatures wargame. But because sneaking and hiding are both important to many missions, the second factor definitely applies. Pretty much any decision to open fire will literally "alert" the Red Force (in solo or versus play) to your location and put your plans at risk.

As for rules of engagement, they tend to be scenario-specific. But I've just put a couple of missions out to my patrons to test that involve trying to not kill anyone.

Speaking more to the general thrust, whilst meaningful decisions are a good thing to offer players, there does have to be an eye towards avoiding giving players too many meaningful choices that can lead to analysis paralysis.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





It doesn't have to be tedious book-keeping or randomness, just when your choices are either 'ticking boxes' or 'rolling dice.' Cards are great for providing a pseudo-random experience and controlling resources (Gloomhaven, Kingdom Death, etc).
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

 precinctomega wrote:

Speaking more to the general thrust, whilst meaningful decisions are a good thing to offer players, there does have to be an eye towards avoiding giving players too many meaningful choices that can lead to analysis paralysis.


Sure, but there is a spectrum. If every choice is a "No Choice" or every choice is "Buffet of Choice" then you will have a game with issues. The first is boring, and the second in meandering at best.

So, what is the optimum number of choices a player should be making to avoid paralysis OR to avoid decision making fatigue in an exercise in fun?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Depending on what else is going on the rule of thumb in technical writing is between 7-9 items, depending on parsing, can be held in someone's attention at a time. The parsing is really the thing though. So long as you can tie stuff together and 'chunk' the information according to patterns then you can drastically increase that number.

In games especially players need to be able to keep in mind their end-game, their score, the choices in front of them, and the potential responses of their opponent. Cards are one handy device for chunking information.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






What's an interesting one with 40k being used as a comparison point, is that there is a fair bit more to the game than the battle itself, and I think what 40k demonstrates is a game of decreasing decisions.

The first part of the game is choosing what you bring. This step holds the most tactical and meaningful decisions, and as such takes long enough that it is best done separately and whenever the players have time, ahead of the game. List building involves a great deal of meaningful decisions - do I drop the big gun on this unit to be able to increase the size of that unit, and so forth. This can make a huge difference on the outcome of the game - if you build for anti-tank and face a horde, you've made a poor tactical decision.

The second part of the game is picking your objectives. This step has meaningful decisions, as you weigh up what you can and cannot achieve against your opponent and then gamble your winning conditions on achieving them.

Thirdly is deployment, which is a game of bluff and counterbluff, where you decide whether to deploy your chaff units first, delaying your big units, or deploy a big unit to tempt their counters into a poor position. These first 3 steps intertwine, as you can get redeployment warlord traits and you can build a list to achieve certain objectives.

Finally is actually playing the game, where you simply push your units into position and perform every action they are capable of to defeat your opponent, with very few sacrifices (EG "I won't move so I can fire this gun", or "I will sacrifice shooting to perform this action") so very little meaningful decision - if you did steps 1-3 right, then step 4 is almost autonomous, to follow your plans to victory.



I think there should be a decent balance of pre-game and in-game meaningful decisions. 40k nails pre-game, but falls down a lot on in-game. Unspent CP is lost, so you gain nothing by saving it. Some stratagems are no brainers, and others are wastes of ink. Units can move and shoot, with hardly a slap on the wrist for two men carrying a tripod-mounted cannon between them whilst shooting it.

So I guess to me, the way to make Choices matter is to first make them actual choices - not "what do I shoot at", but "Do I shoot, or do I do this instead". As soon as there is an actual choice between things to do, rather than just the order to do them in, then you can make decisions in game design to make these choices equally effective. Once there are two or more mutually exclusive options, all of which are about equal, the players decision making matters.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





You could say it's the distinction between comparing apples to oranges, rather than weighing up your apples?

Maybe the amount of player input vs players solving an optimization puzzle...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/02 16:16:27


 
   
Made in it
Regular Dakkanaut




 Easy E wrote:
Greetings fellow designers,

Frequently, we talk about how to create choice in our games. However, it was less clear to me about what does that even mean in the context of Game Design.

More importantly, how do you make a choice meaningful as opposed to a "no-choice". A "No Choice" is basically an option a player will always use when it is available, such as shooting in the shooting phase of 40K. There is no reason NOT to shoot.

So, I struggled and tried to put down some thoughts on how to create an actual meaningful choice in a wargame here:

https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2021/05/wargame-design-creating-meaningful.html

I decided on the following equation:
(Positive Outcomes / Negative Impacts) + Downstream Impacts to the Game = Meaningful Choice

Your thoughts?

Interesting question.
Because I thought (and I still think) that you can't teach how to take good strategic and tactical decisions, when I tried to create my USGS (Universal Strategy Game System) using the Warhammer 40.000 armies like basis, I decided to face that issue without facing it! In fact I started to study how the Second World War armies maneuvered, then I started to develop a game structure able to be a credible representation of these manoeuvres: for example because a soldier needs 5 seconds circa to detect the enemy, aim and shoot, I decided that a turn have to be representative of a 5 second time period, so every model could perform only one action 5 second long (move, shoot, give a command, use the psychic/magical power…) , then I thought to add in the rulebook some piece of advice about how built a good battlefield: where put the cover, why put them in that place, how to use the various type of troops and so on. In this way I would have let to the player the burden to find a way to win the game, but not without give him some instructions about how to play in the most satisfactory way.
Unfortunately no ones among my game-friends wanted try something new, so I aborted my project.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 16:28:16


The answer is inside you; but it is wrong. 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Write it for yourself.... because you have to do it like you have to sleep, eat, or drink.

If you don't have to write it as a primal need.... then abort as you like.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





You could also find out what your friends enjoy and figure out how to connect that back to the WWII simulation you want to play.

I agree with Easy E though, designing a game you don't actually want to play yourself isn't worth your time.
   
Made in it
Regular Dakkanaut




You have misunderstood me: my purpose was to create more credible game dynamics for W40k, in order to solve the issues all my game friends were complaining about and in a second moment I decided to solve also the issues that the player of Warhammer Fantasy had; this is why I called my rules "Universal Strategy Game System".
For this reason I started to study the Second World War Armies and for the same reason I dropped the project when I quit the game.
Anyway I didn't want start an off topic, I wanted tell how I tried to solve the issue described in the opening post.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 10:46:20


The answer is inside you; but it is wrong. 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Most game designers start out trying to "fix" a GW system.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Yup. Heck, Titanomachina started as me trying to build a modern Adeptus Titanicus (started back in 2011). It's funny to see the direction they took with it.

Going back to meaningful choices, I saw that there's some curmudgeons in the board game world complaining about all the hacks in board games designed to take the sting out of making bad decisions, stuff to help players come from behind because they screwed up or didn't understand the early game, or simply to make something somewhat procedural feel like a race.

It might be something to define 'meaningful choices' as giving players choices that they can regret with the benefit of hindsight. That's assuming the game was engaging enough (and perhaps quick enough) that they want to play again to see if they can suss it out this time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 17:31:18


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




That is very close to my definition of meaningful choices. I may have mentioned in some other thread that I call this "opportunities for making mistakes"
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Seattle, WA USA

I like the idea there of "opportunity for mistake," since if it wasn't a meaningful choice in the first place, it wouldn't have any real effect on the outcome of the game, right? I think you do have to be slightly careful to make sure no single "bad decision" completely costs the game (at least, most of the time), but I also agree that too much rubber banding minimizes the impact of any choice, too.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

I think what 40k demonstrates is a game of decreasing decisions.


I think that's a really interesting and true observation. And the only addition I'd make is that I think it's a true statement of pretty much every miniatures wargame I can think of.

One of the appeals of miniatures wargames is the "front-loading" of decision making. The experience of learning the rules and assembling our armies requires hundreds of subtle decisions, each overlapping and interacting with all of the others.

I recently did a review of Polyversal (and a livestream video version here) and one thing I loved about the rulebook was how much it encouraged this kind of pre-game crunchy analysis. But one of the things I disliked was how much pre-game crunchy analysis I had to get through before the dice got rolled.

Of course, YMMV, but I think there's a sweet spot when it comes to pre-game crunch (i.e. decision-making).

But you're dead right that the diversity and range of options you can offer in the pre-game is vastly greater than the diversity and range of options that should be available in te endgame and that pretty much any good miniatures wargame is a process of reducing these options from many to few.

All of that said, when we are looking at a single tabletop interaction, I tend to think that whilst a player may technically have lots of options, the practical options should tend to boil down to two things.

Those two things may vary between interactions. But the core dichotomy should be "should I do X or Y?" And ideally, you would have a divergence between probability and outcome in each. So one might be easier to achieve, but have a less satisfying outcome if successful, whilst the other might be harder to achieve but have a more satisfying outcome if successful.

In Zero Dark the classic dichotomy is "do I just straight-up shoot that target from here, or shall I attempt to sneak closer to reduce the range and perhaps earn some additional bonuses, but run the risk that I not get to shoot at all?"

   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Honestly, I am coming to the conclusion that the community (at least online) PREFERS the pre-game decision making and strategic choice over the table top decisions and tactical choice.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





It does have the advantage of living in their heads rent-free, as the kids would say. It's a clever way of preventing them from wandering outside the walled garden of gaming products as well.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

 Easy E wrote:
Honestly, I am coming to the conclusion that the community (at least online) PREFERS the pre-game decision making and strategic choice over the table top decisions and tactical choice.


I think listbuilding (which is what I assume you are primarily referring to) scratches some sort of primal itch in the human mind and is the "glue" that keeps peoples minds thinking about the game even when they aren't at the table. In a way, the listbuilding process is a bit of a puzzle, as in you are resource bound/limited (by way of points) and have to assemble a "solution" (using raw materials purchased with those resources that come in the form of units, weapons, and wargear contained with a codex/army book) to a "problem" (your opponents army and strategy, mission/scenario, and terrain layout) that you can only vaguely predict beforehand. Due to the huge potential number of variables of what actually occurs during the course of the game itself your mind couldn't meaningfully process through a mentally simulated game while you're driving to work or procrastinating from studying for an exam, etc. but listbuilding is a much more tangible touchpoint for you to mentally manipulate and examine whilst doing something else and allows for a form of mental interaction and stimulation (i.e. endorphin/dopamine hit) while away from the table and the game proper.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






Listbuilding is an exercise I associate with GW mini games and their rivals who are copying that model. At least in my historical gaming experience in 25mm Napoleonics, as each corps was the same regardless of nationality (10 Battalions of six Infantry stands each, 3 regiments of cavalry (six stands each), and 9 artillery batteries, the choices were dictated mainly by what was actually made at the time, and within that some flexibility (taking more horse artillery instead of heavier static guns, or lancers instead of hussars). With pre-battle choices being limited, the meaningful decisions were tactical; can you use your army's national characteristics to best advantage?

Similarly, from what I've read, the "Old Guard" gamers like Donald Featherstone and Charles Grant who pioneered the early minis hobby, did not use national characteristics at all (or rarely). In any given period, a given unit type was the equal of that type regardless of national origin. Again, this made deployment and tactical decisions in play primary, and thus the meaningful ones.

I do agree with chaos0xomega's statement that listbuilding in an exercise one can do as a mental exercise when actual gaming is impractical. And I've easily put more hours into designing ships for Starfire (a tactical space combat wargame), cars for Car Wars, and armies for WHFB, than actually playing those games.

As to meaningful choices ... A player has to have agency, otherwise the game is unplayable. I've a hex & counter wargame of the Battle of Hastings where both players are essentially organic waldos for the game. In theory, the players each choose a general command, and then roll 2d6 on the appropriate table, so the Attack table had more options for movement than the Defense table. (There is a third table which was never used so I've forgotten its name). In practice, the Normans who need to clear the hill and march on London, went into shield wall. The Saxons, who simple need to keep the Normans from getting to London, charged. As players all we could do was make do with the situation that had been randomly generated for us. We played three turns but never completed the game. As players, our decisions had no effect on the game, and the control we had with the command choice was illusionary.

I don't have an answer for you, other than avoid "auto-includes" or no-brainers. Like the Black Lotus in Magic:tG, it was three free mana in a color of your choice in a game where colored man is critical. If you had a Black Lotus, it was an auto-include in any deck.

You may want to visit Boardgame Geek, if you have not already. One of the subdomains is Board Game Creation. Within it there is a Design Theory forum, and I'm sure other designers have or are wrestling with this same problem.

Kings of War: Abyssal Dwarves, Dwarves, Elves, Undead, Northern Alliance [WiP], Nightstalkers [WiP]
Dropzone Commander: PHR
Kill Team: Deathwatch AdMech Necron

 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

chaos0xomega wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
Honestly, I am coming to the conclusion that the community (at least online) PREFERS the pre-game decision making and strategic choice over the table top decisions and tactical choice.


I think listbuilding (which is what I assume you are primarily referring to) scratches some sort of primal itch in the human mind and is the "glue" that keeps peoples minds thinking about the game even when they aren't at the table.


I think you are spot on. As Nurglitch said, "it is living rent free" in a player's head.

However, I think it goes beyond JUST list building. It also includes "analyzing" which unit is better, which load-out is better, what is better to get as a level-up, etc. If you look at game commentary online, it is almost always strategic in nature and rarely tactical. The strategic choices just seem easier to talk about as it can be done in a vacuum.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





It's much easier to talk about tactical choices in card games like MTG or Hearthstone. In fact I originally played Hearthstone to get acquainted with that sort of stuff (tempo, aggro, etc) for my Titanomachina game. I think the problem essentially is that position and timing is very difficult to talk about when it isn't tidily parsed for players like in Chess or MTG, using boxes like board squares or cards.
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: