How hard should a co-op game be?

I see this topic pop up all the time and the answers usually range from 50% win/loss to 1 win per 3 games. Honestly though, I'd put far more focus into making sure the game just plays well win or lose.

One of the major problems with coop games is that they usually have an "Ideal Strategy" or are "Too Random for players to matter". Even worse... a game can fall into different categories for different players.

Just make sure alot of people test the game, and judge it on whether they enjoyed the experience.

When I think of co-op games I really enjoy, the game is designed in a way that the cards could be stacked against you (unintentionally) to lose, but you normally have a strong chance to still win.

I once played a game of Pandemic where we got 2 epidemics on one person's turn (which is VERY unlikely, knowing how the deck is stacked) and lost immediately. There is NO way we could have won that game. On the flip side, I usually win a little over half of the Pandemic games I play with friends.

You also may have the designer's lens of knowing how the game works, so perhaps give it to some playtesters and DON'T SAY ANYTHING during the play. No hints, no clues, nothing. This will also reveal if the game is "solvable" (something you don't want).

As a designer and publisher with a co-op game (for 1-7 players no less), I'll tell you that it's critical that the game be hard enough to kick a player's teeth in the first time. If we're teaming up against a mindless game, it should beat us round 1. If I can beat a co-op game the first time, or at least do so easily within the suggested play time, then I won't play it again. Undead Viking agrees.

Regarding testing at the higher levels.... test it! Make sure it scales to the # of players. If it doesn't you have a problem. Several co-op games are impossible with 2 people; balanced with 3 or 4; and a joke at 5+. If it doesn't scale, that's ok, just make it a 3-4 player game (or the suggested number for balance).

If you have any questions, visit my Advice Columns at http://bit.ly/KickstarterAdviceColumnsonBGDF or drop me a PM, etc.

John Wrot!
Gate Keeper Games

Make it HARD default. But also add different difficulty modes!

One approach that I think works is to have different levels of success. You might have one goal that represents "You didn't win, but your sacrifice was not in vain. You weakened the villain enough that the world goes on, and maybe the next band of heroes can defeat him." This should be reasonably easy (but still not a gimme).

Another goal might be, "You win, but the trauma of your injuries and losses will haunt you for the rest of your days." This should be challenging enough that players should have made some distinctly clever moves/combinations, and not simply avoided errors.

The final goal is, "Victory! You have vanquished the threat to the world and you are lauded as conquering heroes!" This should be very hard, requiring flawless play and better than average luck.

Definitely hard enough the first time that you realize the game is a challenge and that when you eventually manage to win you have achieved something.

Not difficult because of random events though. It is no fun to play a game over and over just waiting for the right sequence of cards or die rolls to come up, even though you have solved the game a long time ago and knows how to play. It should be difficult to figure out the winning strategy, and once it has been figured out the player(s) should win the game with a very high probability. It is no fun when you know you have a great plan, but that it will only let you win with 33 % chance anyway.

Having many different scenarios is a huge plus because then it is OK if each scenario can be figured out on the first or second attempt, as there is plenty of replay value from just switching to new scenarios. A game with only a single scenario I think must be a lot more difficult, so that you need many replays to figure it out. Or that there is so much random variation in what story the game is telling that every time it feels like playing a new scenario and that you have a fair chance of winning.

Most solitaire games feel like puzzles, but they don't have to.

Ambush! does not feel like a puzzle, because each scenario ("mission") is a scripted adventure that plays out much like playing a RPG. You play it for the story, to accumulate experience points to improve your squad to prepare for the next mission. Playing the same scenario many times would be like a very bad puzzle because you already know mostly what will happen and where the hidden enemy units are, and what the story is (except there is a bit of random variation between replays).

Fields of Fire is very random, so even playing the same scenario again always makes it feel like a new game, with new challenges. The terrain is created for each play by drawing cards and placing as a grid, so the map never looks the same, and also enemy units are created randomly from a list of 10 possibilities in each scenario, so even if you replay the same scenario many times you will never see the same combination of enemies. It will be like a new puzzle every time, and you will never solve the game.

Then there are games that are very random, but still don't feel like a new scenario every time. Even if I draw cards from a deck to see what happens next, if I feel like I have already figured out a good plan to win the game, I just feel like I have solved the puzzle and just wait for the right combination of cards to show up.

Guess it is very subjective. It might be that in eg Fields of Fire I set up the map before I start playing, so I generate a puzzle, and then I start thinking about how to solve it, but in other games I start from the same starting point and I know what events are in the deck so it feels like the same scenario, even if the generated story will be different depending on what order I draw the cards. I have to make up my mind early what strategy to use, and if I have already figured out a good strategy that is what I will do, whereas in Fields of Fire I will study the map and then try to think of a strategy, and that strategy will probably not be similar to the strategy I tried to use last time I played.

I´d say beginners should have at least a 30% chance to win the first (or maybe the second, as the first is for learning) game.
Loosing more than 5 games in a row might be frustrating and a lot of people will not try for a 6th time (maybe besides they see that they came closer to winning every time they tried).

And on the other hand, even expierienced players should not win much more than every second game as always winning is boring too. So if expierinece makes the players significantly more likely to win, different "levels" will be necessary.