We've all been there - you're playing a game and you realize there's nothing you can do to win but the game hasn't technically ended. It's not a fun position to be in. In my two-player game, most matches end like this. How undesirable is this? Should players be able to win under any circumstance, or should enough better plays from one player snowball into a win?
Point of no return
Sat, 03/11/2017 - 09:17
Sat, 03/11/2017 - 09:48
#1
I feel ya
This is always one of the hardest issue's regarding game design. Balance throughout the game.
Have you thought of a form of insurance for players? Example: They can have a plan B ready in case plan A fails. Plan B is worse to play with. But always handy to have, just to have the chance of winning. If a player doesn't work on plan B, the loss is certainly deserved.
While I am talking about a plan A and B. You could also assume that you build up 2 plans. And only 1 can be used at a time by the players.
And games need to be able to allow that.
Traps, are a fine and easy example regarding a plan B. They don't necessarily give a win. But they can buy time by either chasing the other player off. Or the other player is kicked back to a weaker state as well.
I guess, it entirely depends on the game mechanics. I always aimed to have players build up their plan alphabet. With each plan being a chess piece that is being made stronger through the game.
Sat, 03/11/2017 - 10:10
#2
Snowball chance to win?
I understand the term, but it sounds a bit harsh of a term in my opinion. But that's what it is.
I think we look to hard to have these design rules as rule and not much as guidelines as they are when we as designers design games. Why pick and choose of who should win as top dog and brag and say,"well, this design of a game feels like to much of a way over powered player winning the game if this player starts first or flips a coin or roll a dice to see who goes first or young person goes first and that outcome some how has that player who goes first nearly wins every time" type design.
Or how about "I" design a game where everyone one wins, no one loses and call it a day?
All games that are created equal , balanced or unbalanced and still in some way is a great game but still has flaws in it should be played as is. It's a chance. A race running down the track or driving around in a circle for three hours it all depends on how the rules are written and how the player manipulates the rules in his or her mind to win the game or race or what ever the game is. Or that player puts all of the abstract cards together the fastest time.
It's chance. A risk. Strategy. A no brainer. If you or her or the other person behind you design a game of these thoughts of who should win first and then feel horribly bad that the person came in last or didn't win or there was a handicap mechanic where the last place player had a decent chance to make up the spaces or die roll to attack or couldn't defend or what have you and still made up to win is over thinking the game.
Why think this way when we design games. If you created the game and you as the designer should feel that you should win all the time because you designed the game , you know the ins and outs of the mechanics of the game upon where you can manipulate the tactics or know something the playtester doesn't should feel put off.
Create or design a game that you think will be fun, not by the standards of all the design rules where is should be this way or that. I have designed 17 games, and play tested in solo games and with my group staff. I laugh when I never win the game I designed. The staff out think me after a few games and I created the games. Nothing in game design should be fair. Or some times depending on the game theme in general style format design.
So in my honest opinion; the player who wins fair and square is the winner not because how the game was designed but how the die was thrown or the cards were used in his or her favor. It's by chance. Risk taking.
Stormy
Sat, 03/11/2017 - 12:10
#3
Depends on the game...
We've all been there - you're playing a game and you realize there's nothing you can do to win but the game hasn't technically ended. It's not a fun position to be in. In my two-player game, most matches end like this. How undesirable is this? Should players be able to win under any circumstance, or should enough better plays from one player snowball into a win?
It really depends on the game.
Yeah, I know it's a generic, cliche answer, but let me explain.
If the game is short...a la Love Letter, knowing you're not going to win at a certain point isn't too hard on you cause the game is so quick you can just try again.
But in a big, crunchy game like Power Grid, it's absolutely discouraging when you know there's no way you can win.
I think the level at which a person is discouraged is proportional to the invested time they've put into the game...the longer they've invested their time, the more disappointed they will be if they feel like they will lose way before the game ends.
Being a designer, you want to cater to the situation...and it all depends on player knowledge. Do you want the players to know exactly where they stand at all times? Or do you want to give the player an idea on if they will win, not knowing exactly?
If you're giving full information, I would say that you want to design so that there are little to no "runaway victories". To me, a great contest ends when the players really felt like they could have won down to the last turn.
Personally, I always try and design around the possibility of runaways victories. It's completely undesirable and discouraging.
Of course you can give the "illusion" of winning. Games that have victory points are usually this way...Ascension, Blood Rage, 7 Wonders, etc. All of these games have direct influences on the score and hidden ways of influencing the score (a la multipliers, bonus points for having sets, etc.) If your game is suffering from lopsided victories, maybe the solution is to include hidden bonus points that are only revealed at the end of the game...IF you have victory points in your game and it's the only means of winning.
Hope this helps.
Sun, 03/12/2017 - 02:05
#4
Winning
Ideally your game will end as quickly as possible once a clear "winner" has been established. Or, rather, a player should *feel* like they have a chance to win right up until the end of the game.
The "feeling" part is important, as even if there is mechanically no way for a player to win, if they feel like they have a chance then they're still engaged and generally having a good time.
Mon, 03/13/2017 - 15:12
#5
resign
I would like to point out Chess as an example of your issue, which is solved by resigning. Is your game also 2 player?
Mon, 03/13/2017 - 15:48
#6
If you find you have no
If you find you have no chance of winning, and there are more than 2 players, then your next goal is second place. You can still have good battles against other players who also cannot win as you jockey for the highest spot. It's why there are silver and bronze medals.
If you are in a hopeless situation, you still have an opportunity to try things you may not try if you are in contention to win. Experiment. Test a theory. See what works and what doesn't work. Learn something about the game that you would not ordinarily have a chance to try. If you can't win, you might as well try to become a better player with the remaining time in the game.
Tue, 03/14/2017 - 12:34
#7
To answer your question
I think that this board state is something to be avoided at all costs. I play a lot of Chess, and when I'm teaching a new player, and they're on their way to losing, their turns take longer and longer, and they instinctively draw it out, analyzing very possible way out, rather than just ending it and starting a new game. Without a chance to explain that to a player (that the should just resign and start over), your game may very quickly be disliked by a fair number of its players, because they felt hopeless for such a long time in-game (although it was really only a handful of turns).
To avoid this, take a look at when in the game this occurs. Could you change the tipping point to your new victory condition? This is one direction that a lot of euros take, though this makes the games "feel short" to some, because they never get the satisfaction of seeing everything play out in their favor for as long as they would like. Still, this is immensely preferable to the protracted death spiral.
An alternative that I can see being useful would be to slow down the lead player somehow. Power Grid is an excellent example of a game that does this by allowing the "losing" players to purchase resources first, meaning that they get them at the lowest price (counteracting the "winning" player's higher money income). This mechanic can increase game length a bit, but it prevents the runaway leader problem from getting out of hand.
Tue, 03/14/2017 - 12:35
#8
To answer your question
I think that this board state is something to be avoided at all costs. I play a lot of Chess, and when I'm teaching a new player, and they're on their way to losing, their turns take longer and longer, and they instinctively draw it out, analyzing very possible way out, rather than just ending it and starting a new game. Without a chance to explain that to a player (that the should just resign and start over), your game may very quickly be disliked by a fair number of its players, because they felt hopeless for such a long time in-game (although it was really only a handful of turns).
To avoid this, take a look at when in the game this occurs. Could you change the tipping point to your new victory condition? This is one direction that a lot of euros take, though this makes the games "feel short" to some, because they never get the satisfaction of seeing everything play out in their favor for as long as they would like. Still, this is immensely preferable to the protracted death spiral.
An alternative that I can see being useful would be to slow down the lead player somehow. Power Grid is an excellent example of a game that does this by allowing the "losing" players to purchase resources first, meaning that they get them at the lowest price (counteracting the "winning" player's higher money income). This mechanic can increase game length a bit, but it prevents the runaway leader problem from getting out of hand.
This sounds right to me, regardless of the kind of game, because this board state is almost impossible to avoid.
Currently in my two-player game, once a player has a strong enough board developed, the longest it could take to finish the game is one full turn, which takes about 5 minutes. That's also if both players figure that out - it takes a decent amount of mental jiggering to realize that the board state is as such (it's not totally apparent).
It's something I wish to eliminate, but one turn doesn't seem too bad. I play other games (Codex, MtG) where defeat is both more apparent and more than one turn away.
If it was several turns down the line, that would be a problem.