The Seventeen Ways Games can be Difficult by Andrew Doull

[nessalin]

The Seventeen Ways Games can be Difficult by Andrew Doull

Mentioned in a recent Roguelike Radio podcast.

The article is from 2010 and, I would argue, not as clear as it should be.

Still.  It has plenty that is applicable to the game.

[Vex]

Strategy X is clearly cheating, because I can't or won't do it, or don't enjoy doing it. Welcome to the world, scrub.

Replace cheating with wrong, this line could be be leveled at the GDB, with complete accuracy.

1. Random number generators
2. Indeterminacy of outcomes due to unpredictable external forces
3. Other players
4. Complex risk vs. reward trade offs <-
5. Finite playing time <-
6. Self-limiting performance
7. Inequality <-
8. Asymmetry
9. Learning the rules
10. Incomplete information
11. Incorrect information
12. User interface
13. Disparity between beginning, mid and high level play
14. Complexity
15. Emergence
16. Play
17. Pleasure

It was an interesting read, and some of it can be applied here, though most of what he's speaking of, doesn't translate very well.

4, 5 and 7 are the three I feel the game should best focus on improving.

Four, because there is much risk to be found, but little in the way of rewards for it. There are many interesting places, protected by extreme risks that are, to most players, going to be insurmountable, and those who have met the challenge and won, or at least slipped past it intact, tend to find very little of interest beyond interesting scenery.

The Grey Forest, or some of the flung areas of the game world, are good examples. Dangerous, both in wildlife and natural hazards, or in the case of the silt, the greatest risk arising from the code, yet there is... little to be found, or even foraged, that can't be found, but a few rooms away from most any civilized settlement. There are "gimmicks", like a certain flower, from a certain forest, that may qualify as reward for some, but for others, they're looking for something... less frivolous.

Socially, there is great risk in interaction with politics, but the rewards for it are too few and too far between. I do get, the journey is where the joy should be. The thrill of the risk, can and is, part of the reward, but too often, it isn't enough to warrant, walking into that locked room, or even being engaged with the kind of people, who offer such invitations in the first place.

I ride a motorcycle, these days. There is thrill in the inherent risk, but I get much more out of it, and that makes the risk entirely acceptable. When faced with a lot of risks, in Armageddon, I do not find the reward is adequate for the risk. Often, I take the risk, to have something to do, but that isn't a "good" reason or motivation. Really, it's a horrid reason, when our pcs, are supposed to be acting, like proper people. Its often, the only reason most have, once they're geared, skilled and rich, though.

I feel the risk vs reward problems, are the reason "living a long time" and "maxing slashing skills", is the central focus of so many players. I see them, in Luirs, or Allanak, and they have been around for so long, yet I have no interest in them. Because they're boring, risk-adverse, and struggle to come up with tavern small talk, so small are their lives.

Those players, and their pcs, need more reasons, to take risks. They need the option, to have a nicer place, that costs more, or requires certain tributes. They need options, for social accolades and other  perks, to get them to show up for dangerous missions. Too often, the people who show up, and give it the life or death dice roll, are the people with little to lose, from a player point of view.

My favorite pcs, have always been the 1-5 day ones, who are completely fine, with a dangerous trek into the forest, or having a look into that dark "enter" cave, or to hop onto the skimmer, and sail off with Captain Dorf, master of pilot and slashing skills, to points unknown (death).

The older pcs get, the more space they take up, the more sway they have over ic culture, and the less they're likely to do anything of interest. There are some, imo, who go so far, as to discourage others from doing risky and interesting things, because they don't want to feel left out, instead of just jumping on board with it, and lending a hand.

We could fix that, by simply providing people more things to do with wealth, that require social accolades, such as awarded, code-backed titles. A hero of three sewer crawls receives honors from the pc Templarate, allowing them to rent a more expensive, lavish home in a gated community, or purchase a rare and expensive mount, or some weapon or armor with a sliver of copper, to show their status.

There are many options that, collectively, could motivate people, to take up the pursuit of being interesting, once again. They don't need to be promotions, but small things and perks, for people to strive for, that require them to get involved, and take some risks, be it daring-do or gambling their career on which senator to support.

Five, is very simple. There are some here, who, for various reasons, have no life obligations, and can contribute a dozen hours to the game, in a single sitting, should they choose to. There are many, who cannot, and the latter face numerous issues.

It is a common complaint, that being gone from the game for even a day or two, can lead people to assume death. Characters have been replaced, in rank, for this, some have been punished in-game, for their inability to log an adequate number of hours to appease their pc boss.

There are communication options, we could pursue. A more advanced WHO list, or means of leaving an "I'm alive, doing virtual life." message for when we're offline, available to those we add to the advanced WHO list allowances, or however you want to do it, would also be grand.

WHO
The silky, tressy-tress woman (I'm alive, running errands for Lord Fuffnpuff) (Offline)
The brutish, burly brute (I'm bench pressing whores, in the Gaj back room) (Offline)

So, two people, who have added YOU to THEIR online allowance list, show up when YOU type WHO, showing them offline. I know, I know, but then you can easy tell people are dead, or not, but thats fine, imo, as its designed to provide players with convenience and to nip awkward, log in related misunderstandings, before they stumble into the ic.

The idea is, YOU choose who can see it. So, if you want your rp mate to know, your alive and not dead, so oh noes, please don't take me off the rent and replace me, with handsom Amos, it'll be way awkward, you can add them to your who allowance.

Basically, it lets you decide, who you oocly trust, with that information. It's all optional, must remain optional (no byn sergeant harassing everyone, to add him to their who allowance, or else), and is entirely up to you.

Or, something completely different, that people are fine with. But, some kind of enhanced communications, that aren't centered around the GDB, or the ooc channel, would be ideal.

Seven, inequality. Karma. Everyone hates it, except the people who have all of it. And even they complain, that they have to go play Haven for a while, waiting for karma to regen, so they can make a new pc. Get rid of it, it's bad, it's likely always been bad, it drives off new players, it sucks.

It is all stick, no carrot.It creates an elitist atmosphere, that is off-putting. It does not impose standards, because lots of 2+ karma players are shady AF. It just makes people resentful, creates a staff vs player mindset, and will continue to be an ugly, distasteful part of the game, as long as its around.

The inequality among players, is worse here, than it is, in any other game I've played, in my entire life. It's bad. Dump it. Seriously.

Not entirely comparable, with the article, but that is what most comes to mind after reading it.

[Miradus]

That article was so interesting I almost got killed in the other window when I forgot I was playing.

Thanks for posting!