Switch Theme:

Game Design Discussion- Choices You Do Not Want Players to Make  [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 Designers,

This is a bit of the "flip side" of the Meaningful Choice thread.

As you review your games, are there choices you do not want players to have to make?

For example, if you think of Ghost Archipelago/ Frostgrave 2.0/Stargrave, Mr. McCullough had decided that he did not want players making warband size decisions. He capped it at 10 models. 1 Wizard, 1 Apprentice, 4 specialists, and 4 other soldiers. Therefore, at the beginning, each warband would have an equal number of models and the activation economy would start off relatively even.

That was a choice the designer made FOR the gamer. Are there choices you do not want players to have to make to or during play?

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






Caps like that are ripe ground for interesting gameplay dynamics. For example, I think Blood Bowl does the "lots of cheap guys" dynamic well by limiting the number of active players per side to 11 models but allowing for up to 16 dudes total in the team, with the rest acting as a reserve. While the limit of 11 never changes, the player is presented with a choice of only taking that or bloating their team value by having extras at hand in case of injuries.

I do personally also enjoy a forced deployment scenario every now and then, like "here's your list, they are in these positions, go".

#ConvertEverything blog with loyalist Death Guard in true and Epic scales. Also Titans and killer robots! C&C welcome.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page

Do you like narrative gaming? Ongoing Imp vs. PDF rebellion campaign reports here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/786958.page

 
   
Made in it
Regular Dakkanaut




I think the best way to achieve that goal is to write in the rules what are the things they can't do.

The answer is inside you; but it is wrong. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
I think the best way to achieve that goal is to write in the rules what are the things they can't do.


I think you've misunderstood the topic of discussion. What you're describing is limiting or eliminating specific options that a player has available to them whilst making their decisions - this is something that is typical and standard in rulesets. What Easy E is describing is removing decisions from players entirely - this is not accomplished by saying "you can't do this" but rather by engineering it into the structure of the mechanics themselves. Like in the aforementioned example of listbuilding, the rules simply tell you to take 10 models consisting of 1 of this, 1 of that, 4 of those, and 4 of the other thing - the mechanics of removed the decision entirely, there is no decision to be made at all about how many models to include or what types they should be. What you described, on the other hand, would only make sense if the rules said "You make take up to 10 models of which 1 may be this, 1 may be that, up to 4 may be those, and up to 4 may be the other thing."

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in it
Regular Dakkanaut




I must confess it is hard to me understand the difference among this:
chaos0xomega wrote:
[…]
Like in the aforementioned example of listbuilding, the rules simply tell you to take 10 models consisting of 1 of this, 1 of that, 4 of those, and 4 of the other thing - the mechanics of removed the decision entirely, there is no decision to be made at all about how many models to include or what types they should be.
[…]

and this:
chaos0xomega wrote:
[…]
What you described, on the other hand, would only make sense if the rules said "You make take up to 10 models of which 1 may be this, 1 may be that, up to 4 may be those, and up to 4 may be the other thing."

But maybe you are somehow right: when I tried to create my strategy game system, I has been very punctilious about how a player could be able to build his army (how many men put in a team, how to equip them, what is their role in the team, what is the rank of the team-leader, what kind of teams you can create in this way, how many teams you can put in a squad, what is the role of each kind of team, what is the rank of the squad-leader…), but at the same time letting to him total freedom of strategical and tactical decision and my answer reflected this mindset.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/17 09:45:11


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




MN (Currently in WY)

I see what you are getting at Grim and it is a valid interpretation. Allow me to try and explain better since the topic is pretty nebulous.

I was more referring to making mechanics so the player will do them everytime and not HAVE a decision point. Basically, creating a "No-choice".

Another, slightly different example in 40K. Every unit should always shoot if the model has range, there is no real benefit to not shoot so they should always be shooting. That is a form of "No-choice".

The question revolves around, is there a situation, game style, design purpose to build a "No-Choice" into your mechanics and if so why?

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




Now I understand.
In W40k (2nd edition) there was something like that: every turn was divided in 4 phases: the moving phase, the shooting phase, the psychic phase and the close combat phase and in each phase every player could only chose to perform the action allowed in that phase or don't do anything. Moreover there was a rule that obliged the player to shoot toward the closest enemy model, even if the player was shooting with a rifleman and the closest enemy model was a main battle tank.
In my opinion if the subdivision of the turn in phases makes sense, because it is a way to put some order in the player's decisions, so he can't cheat performing the same action two times in the same turn, the oblige to shoot against the closest enemy model was totally dumb.
Other "no-choise rules" were the ones which had the purpose to make the game more coherent with the lore: for example if a Death Company squad of the Blood Angels (W40k) had an enemy model/unit in its charge range, then the squad have to charge that model due to the insanity of the Death Company members.
Now I know what are you asking for, so I will think about it and maybe I will be able to give you some more useful input.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/17 15:05:12


The answer is inside you; but it is wrong. 
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Easy E wrote:
I see what you are getting at Grim and it is a valid interpretation. Allow me to try and explain better since the topic is pretty nebulous.

I was more referring to making mechanics so the player will do them everytime and not HAVE a decision point. Basically, creating a "No-choice".

Another, slightly different example in 40K. Every unit should always shoot if the model has range, there is no real benefit to not shoot so they should always be shooting. That is a form of "No-choice".

The question revolves around, is there a situation, game style, design purpose to build a "No-Choice" into your mechanics and if so why?


The 40k example is actually not precisely correct, since there are often situations where you don't want to shoot in order to preserve a reliable or otherwise important charge target in place to advance up the table without giving your opponent the ability to remove those models as shooting casualties and thus deny you the charge. This is especially important now in the 9th edition and its complicated objective system, more so for many slower troops like terminator units.

#ConvertEverything blog with loyalist Death Guard in true and Epic scales. Also Titans and killer robots! C&C welcome.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page

Do you like narrative gaming? Ongoing Imp vs. PDF rebellion campaign reports here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/786958.page

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





If you're going to give players the option of a null action, then choosing that option should be risky. I was at a playtest some years ago where a play-tester (and board game company owner) asked what happened if he did nothing. I suggested out that his opponent would punish him for it, and his opponent then went ahead and also did nothing. So the players choose to do nothing and the game just stalled (well, it moved closer to timing out, but that's not great).

There's something to be said for moving the players along when they lack the initiative to do so themselves.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






In mine, I realised that I had made a choice where I didn't want one with my rules - which basically allowed a unit to accumulate damage cards for as long as you don't activate them. As the unit could be ignored, it would be feasible to keep piling damage onto one unit. This meant that players could make that decision to keep ignoring one unit, and as damage cards are a standard deck, this means that if they revealed all of the others and found all the bad ones were on this one unit, they could keep them from being used.

I subsequently changed the turn structure to make sure that everything sheds damage tokens every turn, and so removed that choice for players to be able to make!

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
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Easy E wrote:


Another, slightly different example in 40K. Every unit should always shoot if the model has range, there is no real benefit to not shoot so they should always be shooting. That is a form of "No-choice".


In my last game of 40k, I chose for a unit to deep strike behind a piece of obscuring terrain rather than within range of enemy models they could have shot, because I knew my opponent had a Stratagem that would allow them to attack that unit and probably destroy several of my models before I could use them.

In the same game, a secondary objective that I wanted to achieve required me to preserve a particular unit type that I only had 3 of in my army. I chose to keep one of those units hidden, rather than attacking with them, in order to reserve them to achieve that objective later in the game. Helpfully, that resulted in my opponent expending significant resources in an attempt to remove that unit and handing me a good deal of game tempo without that unit ever having to make a single shooting attack during the game.

This is an example of a game system guiding a player towards a particular style of play (armies should generally attempt to destroy one another) while not strictly limiting player choice and allowing for tactical decisions to mutate on the fly. If all units in 40k were REQUIRED to move directly towards the closest enemy unit and were REQUIRED to target the enemy unit that they mathmatically had the best chance of destroying, that would be an example of "No Choice."

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 the_scotsman wrote:
 Easy E wrote:


Another, slightly different example in 40K. Every unit should always shoot if the model has range, there is no real benefit to not shoot so they should always be shooting. That is a form of "No-choice".


In my last game of 40k, I chose for a unit to deep strike behind a piece of obscuring terrain rather than within range of enemy models they could have shot, because I knew my opponent had a Stratagem that would allow them to attack that unit and probably destroy several of my models before I could use them.

In the same game, a secondary objective that I wanted to achieve required me to preserve a particular unit type that I only had 3 of in my army. I chose to keep one of those units hidden, rather than attacking with them, in order to reserve them to achieve that objective later in the game. Helpfully, that resulted in my opponent expending significant resources in an attempt to remove that unit and handing me a good deal of game tempo without that unit ever having to make a single shooting attack during the game.

This is an example of a game system guiding a player towards a particular style of play (armies should generally attempt to destroy one another) while not strictly limiting player choice and allowing for tactical decisions to mutate on the fly. If all units in 40k were REQUIRED to move directly towards the closest enemy unit and were REQUIRED to target the enemy unit that they mathmatically had the best chance of destroying, that would be an example of "No Choice."


I would have put the "Choice" section of this interaction i nthe movement phase - you chose to hide your models instead of taking up firing positions. If, after moving the models, they could still see an enemy, then it becomes a non-choice to fire with them most of the time.

The one exception to this that I've encountered was in 7th when my opponent forgot about a unit of ratlings I had managed to get into a neglected corner of their deployment zone. With 2 models left, they weren't about to make a dent, so I elected to not move or shoot them in an effort to keep them forgotten. I won the game by 1 point, and that for linebreaker, with a unit they could have destroyed easily and would have done if I had fired off the 2 snipers at any point!

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





That raises a good point about how some choices made by players are mistakes; they didn't intend to make them. Me, I wouldn't have gotten away with quietly hoping my opponent didn't notice a couple of models, because I would have reminded them that they were there, as I hate winning because my opponents made a mistake. Which is ironic as I lost a squad of Raptors in an opponent's terrain for several months because I had forgotten them there...
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: