Intriguing set-backs vs. fun-killers (Inspiration credits to Gabe)

Poor guys: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1894094619/last-blood

Watch the video - and like me, you'll probably say: "We're the fun-killers"...

And you don't have to watch it in it's entirety... But I have seek-ed past the beginning hoping to find "silver linings". Nope!

It's what it is ...

What you're asking about is highly-contextual and varies from game to game, situation to situation. For example, I think there could - hypothetically - be games where player injury is an acceptable, believable, non-fun-killing part of the game. But if there's no way for a player to recover from an opponent's "master stroke" or some goal-post-shifting turn of events, then it definitely kills the fun.

Off the top of my head, I have two situations that cause me to completely quit:
- A consequence that makes me believe I have absolutely no chance of coming back. If it's not the end of the game when that happens, then I will very likely disengage.
- A plan I'd come up with never comes to fruition due to some out-of-the-blue, completely unexpected, drastic turn of events. For example: two-thirds of the way through a game, you draw a card, and everyone at the table is forced to discard their hand and draw a new one. This is regardless of how long it took you to assemble the cards in your hand/optimize your hand. I was about ready to flip the table and walk outta there. And I'll NEVER play that particular game ever again.

As long as I have a strategy to attempt that I've not tried yet, that "just might, maybe could" succeed, then I'll give it a go. If I'm stuck doing the same tactics that put me in the losing situation in the first place, and have no other avenues to attempt a comeback, then forget about it.

Cutthroat Caverns comes to mind, as far as a contemporary game design is concerned. My previous "never play again" example is related to that game. RISK Legacy also edged into this area as well, due to its tendency to reward the leader over and over again. I had a group of friends who joined me in the entire campaign (15 games, I think?). It essentially turned-off two of the players from ever jumping into any game like that ever again.

It doesn't have to be a game highly-dependent on luck, but I suppose it often is. But when player skill levels are mismatched, games as elementary as Checkers or the card game War, or classics like Chess, Scrabble, and Stratego can be in this category as well.

Oh man, that's not good. The green screen is a cool touch, but not enough to give the "sales" video any sizzle. This should have been the secondary gameplay video at best. I lost interest almost immediately, and judging by their funding level vs. goal, so did most viewers.

If it hasn't already been done here on bgdf, I think a cool archive would be great vs. bad KS campaigns...something we can rummage through for inspiration, tales of caution or just a good old fashioned SMH.

I'm glad my show could spark a little lively conversation!

The original context is that in the original version of my football game, players could play injury cards on other players to put certain positions out for a game.

And during the first playtest, my wife played a card that put my quarterback out of the championship game which gave her a rather large advantage, and there was nothing I could do to mitigate the situation.

It was extremely un-fun to have a scenario that I couldn't really plan for or do anything about when it happened.

And I think that's the difference.

It's fine if guns jam, quarterbacks get hurt, tools break, etc. But the player needs to have options and choices when those things happen.

It shouldn't be "oops, now you lose; thanks for playing; better luck next time."

I also think the game's length is a big factor.

My football game is 60 minutes, so I don't want to have a bunch of extra things to think/worry about. And since the game is fairly short, an injury to a key player at a certain time could cost you the entire game

But if it was a 120 minute game, I would put injuries and whatnot in because the player would have more time to recover from negative things happening.

I think some of the responses here have captured my feelings about this. I think it boils down to the set-back needing to have one or more features:
1. It doesn't "undo". If a card I play advances my points/character/whatever and then another card just undoes it, that's no fun. Why did I bother playing my card? Alternatively, set-backs that punish my choice by affecting some other aspect of the game, or preventing that strategy in the future are more interesting.
2. Barriers vs. Setbacks. I would agree with other posters and say that on average, barriers are more interesting and fun than set-backs. A setback undoes something I've done, whereas a barrier makes my journey ahead more difficult.
3. It can be anticipated/avoided. As mentioned in Gabe's example, there was nothing he could have done to prevent his quarterback from getting hurt. He may have known that his wife might have had that particular card, but that knowledge doesn't provide him with any way of mitigating it's effects. If a set-back occurs because of known risks or it can at least can be prepared for, it is much less draining when it happens.
4. It can be mitigated. The effect should not be game-ending. If a set-back makes me lose all hope of getting ahead, with no options on how to play differently, it's no good. Truly the definition of a fun-killer. As mentioned, this can he avoided if there is enough time left in the game to come from behind. If not, then this is a huge fun-killer. Alternatively, if this set back can only happen at the very end of the game, then it at least signals who the winner is going to be, and may as well be the end of the game.

Sorry if that seemed like regurgitation with no extra thought. Just figured I'd agree and reiterate what I thought were the really good points.

Best,
Dan

This is something I struggle with. One thing I've found in having setbacks that targeting one player can often feel bad but things that effect everyone doesn't as much, even if the effect is the same the 'optics' of it is better.

One thought that springs to mind is another of Gabe's recent podcasts with Matt Leacock, Matt mentioned his philosophy of creating impact-full experiences. I mention this coz with a version of a game I'm working on I tried really hard to remove any feel bad moments for the player, but with the play test it felt kinda dull... the version with the occasional bad moment was more exciting due to trying to avoid it, I'm trying to balance it now but you can definitely go too far (that ep really help me figure that out!!)

That's great angle on it, Frank. MtG has some good examples. If my opponent has untapped islands, then caveat emptor. My potential setback is balanced by blue self-handicapping in preserving mana on their turn. However, pure denial can be unfun to play against and in casual play violates Wheaton's rule.

Some people have more fun playing "take that" style and as long as they can get their revenge, fun is preserved in that microcosm. I've been watching a lot of "Heavy Cardboard" playthroughs recently and have noticed that in heavier competition subtler moves that are part and parcel of casual play become game changing setbacks.

The answer depends on the player, and on the type of game. Games can be quite consequence-based, where players try to earn something, or they can be all about avoiding negative consequences, where players are rewarded for participation (most notably, in F2P video games). The more the game is of the latter type, the fewer setbacks you can incorporate.

Similarly, some players embrace constraints (which can lead to setbacks), others really dislike constraints. (This applies to a lot more than games, of course.) The more players dislike constraints, the more they dislike the setbacks that grow out of constraints.

The trend is toward fewer constraints and toward reward-based "games". Question is, what does your target market think?