I was thinking of this mechanic for a computer game I’m writing, but its with certain roleplay goals in mind.

Okay, first of all its a bit like god of wars mini game kills - there’s a sequence of moves, remember them all and so far, so good.

Okay, on the final one (or maybe two), what I’m thinking of is that your not shown the correct move (out of a selection of four options or some such number). Behind the scenes, one of the moves has 100% success rate, while all the others have a, say, 85% success rate.

So a player would be guessing the last move - but if it works, he doesn’t actually know if he got it right or if he chose an 85% one, but got lucky. And at 85%, it’s not hard to get lucky!

Further, as is often the case in RPG’s, these combats will happen more than a few times. If the player chooses the same last move as last time, and it was an 85% one, it actually increases its chance by 5%!!! (or perhaps 10%, I dunno yet)

This means not only does he not know whether he got the right one by the game, but also the one he chose starts to become the right answer. Indeed, it can go up to the full 100%! Becoming a perfectly correct answer!

Finally, I’m not sure when or if the true answer should ever be revealed? The gamist in me says yes - but for the full effect of this mechanic, it would at least have to be once there are two 100% results.  And perhaps even then, just show the two that are 100%, and the GM keeps a secret forever which one was the actual original answer!?

It kind of supports that feeling you were just playing the game, when really you may have or definately were authoring part of the game. Well, I think it's kind of pocket sized creative denial. Makes the memory mini game have a imaginative twist to it, anyway!

Sounded it with my partner but she thought it would only appeal to a thin audience amongst roleplayers - ie, no one would get it. I get it and it amuses me (so that's enough), but it seems pretty straight forward to get as an amusement, so I'm curious what other people think on that matter.

I'd start with 50% success rate for non-automatic moves. And my guts tell me to go with +10% per failure (though really, that depends on the length of the game - I'd probably set it so that bumping everything to 100% would require failing at each and every mini game on your way).

Or maybe, with four moves, I'd give them 25%/50%/75%/100% success rate, assigned randomly at the start of the game, and +5% or perhaps +1d10% per failure (for an addictive effect of random rewards).

Now, I wouldn't reveal until the game over, at which point the player would get a full breakdown of his choices, turn by turn. Like, you know, in roguelike games. Possibly, this could occur at the end of some longer game phase as well, but the player would be given an option of reshuffling current move percentages for the next stage.

Hi Filip,

Why would you do that? I'm not arguing against it, it's just what you would change doesn't tell me what your goals are in changing it?

Though I will argue the randomisation addiction doesn't work at all - the player wont be aware of any d10 roll in order to get excited about his chances. The very idea is that he doesn't know when he chose the correct 100% or when he chose an 85%/less than 100%, but got lucky. But that was just a side idea of yours, I understand. But I thought I'd note this.

I'd go with lower percentages exactly because with 85% it's not hard to get lucky. It would make me inclined to just mash my A button and move on.

With a greater chance of failure, on the other hand, knowing there are strategies to mitigate it I'd start searching for them and weighting my choices. Each failure is the point when I'm reminded my choice is meaningful, and with a greater failure rate this would happen more often. I'd face regular choices between sticking to the same move, now substantially better than two of the remaining three options, or taking a risk to find the perfect move. Depending on whether it's turn based or features a time pressure, the player may start working out his probabilities, which would additionaly affect his choice between repeating the move or trying to hit the perfect one.

As for the randomized increase, I'm assuming the player is aware of the rules. If so, he might chose the same move again, counting on having a much better success chance (or feel more inclined to search for the perfect, fearing a low increase). Upon the reveal, the player can see whether he was guessing right or wrong, however. If he was right, it might add an additional psychological obstacle later on, making him feel too confident and more likely to chose the same move again (even though it's no longer a wise strategy, if he got very lucky the last time). If the player was wrong, it might hit his ego, and pose an entirely different psychological obstacle for later attempts. In short, I'd expect all sorts of gambling behaviors to emerge, triggered upon the reveal. I might well be wrong about all that.

Either way, if the player is aware that the increase is constant, he will take it into consideration when deciding whether to switch to a different move. With a random increase, the formula is less transparent, and there should be more pressure affecting the choice. The move could have improved substantially, or it might be nearly as ineffective as it was. Now that I think about it, it might work better if there was always a chance that a failure bumps the move to 100% (i.e. the formula would add from 1% to [100% - current success rate], possibly with some probability curve involved).

Regarding the reveal, I'd go with a detailed move by move breakdown of choices, because seeing the effects of his choices seems likely to motivate the player to keep up or try harder next time (even though it's largely a guessing game). The option of reshuffling the percentages at the end of the stage is essentially an option to keep or lower the difficulty for the next challenge, though it wouldn't make much sense without the random increase.

Note that I'm considering the mechanics alone. I guess it might make a difference if move a is Fire Storm and move B is Frost Slash and so on, especially if the opponents change. It might be misleading, making the player think there are some vulnerabilities to exploit involved or that whichever move seems more impressive is also more effective. Also, it could invite the player to chose his moves based on their aesthethic qualities rather than any sort of strategy.

I'm wondering about the point of this mechanic.

I've pretty much encountered the kinds of players who play games in order to "play", and they'll be happy if they find a cool new combo of button mashing.

Then you get the players who get a strong sense of wanting to author their characters position within the game world. They want to see the advancement within the character and the development within the game world.

You could probably go so far as to split different types of computer game players along the GNS divide (but since there's another thread that seems to be saying there is no real roleplaying in MMORPGs, I can only guess those individuals would claim that there is even less roleplaying in a standard fighting game...but I digress), let's leave GNS out of it.

I agree with Filip in this issue.

Make the failure percentages far greater. 85% really isn't that much of a failure rate, and players won't know if they've been getting lucky with each strike or lucky with the choice of combo.

If the game makes any fanbase what-so-ever, you can guarantee that a forum will develop around it. So if you try to develop some kind of mystery about the manuevers, then a couple of die-hards will play the game until their thumbs drop off, and then post their guides on how to beat the system. Others will just hack the code and reveal your intricate details to the masses who just want to exploit them or just don't care.

Those who want to exploit won't care about the three other combos with the percentage chance, they'll always go for the sure fire success.

Those who don't care, won't.

It seems like a needless extravagance, especially if you're choosing to hide such a detail.

Why hide the fact that there's a degree of game authorship from the players? Personally I think it's a path of illusionism that will only lead to problems (if it doesn't work) or apathy (if it does).

V

P.S. Why is this in the Endeavour part of the forum? Are you planning on turning this concept into a contest of some type?

When I described it to my partner, I had to mention that the set up is told to the player in advance - they know the percentage set up (they just don't know which has 85% and which has 100%), before it clicked with her at all. I implied this setup in the first post I said the player knows there's a percentage layout, by saying he doesn't know if he chose an 85% or a 100% (ie, to be uncertain which he chose, he'd have to know there what the percentages were to begin with). This is all described from the start, except for which option is the actual 100% one.

Make the failure percentages far greater. 85% really isn't that much of a failure rate, and players won't know if they've been getting lucky with each strike or lucky with the choice of combo.

I've pretty much encountered the kinds of players who play games in order to "play", and they'll be happy if they find a cool new combo of button mashing.

Ah nuts, meant to say I assumed endevour means 'work in progress', rather than declaring competitions. Wrong assumption on my part. Gah! Back to first thoughts for a work in progress?

Hi Filip,

Also, it could invite the player to chose his moves based on their aesthethic qualities rather than any sort of strategy.

Callan,

I was assuming both that the player is aware of the rules and that those percentage layout are periodically shuffled (every new game, every new stage, doesn't matter).

I'm looking for lower success rate so the player can form a picture of layout in a given attempt at playing the game, and engage in the formulation of an efficient strategy allowing so. However, if it's primarily about aesthetic considerations rather than strategy, I'm not sure if I understand the purpose of the 100% move.

What if all moves had an equal rate of failure, but a hidden, periodically shuffled layout of rewards, with each failure increasing the potential reward attached to a successful execution of a given move? Those, I'd make random - you are guaranteed 1 unit of each reward, but after a single failure you can win 1-2 units, after the second failure you can win 1-3 units and so on. You'd know that repeating the move won't make you more effective - but you will have more candies of a given kind in perspective. You might decide to try other moves to uncover the candies they hide. You might decide to execute them because you want other sorts of candies.

Now, the diversity of rewards would again lead to some strategic considerations - but what if the rewards are also diversified aesthetically? This would make your choices purely aesthetic - do you prefer the choice of the move aesthetics or reward aesthetics?

For example, maybe the rewards are some sort of one-use moves you activate outside mini-games (but with no inherent strategic advantage over normal, bland moves available)? Or maybe you win elements of your character's outfit (where instead of getting an increasing number of units, you acquire rarities of a given category)? I'm pretty sure I'd find something like that worthwile as a player - since I'd be spending most of the game with the character in my field of vision, I'd prefer it if he appealed to me aesthetically, and an ability to adjust his or her looks could prove, well, aesthetically useful. Another option I see is winning reactions of some NPCs - say every time I win the game a face of one of the NPCs appears and provides a commentary (i.e. like after a bout in some arcade fighting games), with different moves activating different NPCs and subsequent failure unlocking more rare comments. Essentially, multiple types of rewards could be included and attached to different moves, as it's all aesthetics.

Here's a link to creative denial.

Have you ever played in a group where everyone acts as if you played by the book, when really you were perhaps doing alot by the book and also doing stuff that just wouldn't be compatable with any other group using that book? The 100% is there to indicate there is a right way to play this - then the rest of it blurs which is the right way, so the player feels the way they choose 'is the right way to play'. It's a self concious indulgence in denial. When I say you choose an option out of aesthetics, that means you enjoy the idea that 'this really is the correct answer' that your choosing, when really you just let yourself drift and any old answer that attracts you, draws you in. Then the system helps delude you into the not easily unproven idea that what you chose really was the correct answer for the game!

Like wine blurs the vision, this is kind of like making a wine that blurs ones logic :)

Anyway, the link above seems to talk about a real phenomena at gaming tables. I think my mechanic helps set up for a small, controlled version of that real and enjoyed phenomena.

Hmm, so what with the case when the move I really, really, really want to be the correct answer actually fails? Wouldn't it effectively ruin my delusion?

Maybe a slight starting failure rate for the "correct" move could be in place. It could be something like 75%/90%, for example. Still not that hard to succeed, but one of the moves remains better and there's no way to figure out which one, especially if there is no reveal at all (or if the reveal only happens with two 100% moves, as per one of the ideas from the opening post).

My issue with this is that there is a single tactic that gives the best results, and for that reason it just adds complexity to the game without adding strategy.

So you have two options, one of which, option A, gives you a 100% and the other, option B, a 85%.  You don't know which is which, though, so you can't contribute any strategy to your choice other than which one is more aesthetically appealing to you.

You pick one.  There's a 50% chance it's option A and you succeed.  There's also a 50% chance it's option B, followed by an 85% chance you succeed.  What this means is that you have a 92.5% chance of success.  If you succeed you pick the same option again, but this time the 85% turns to 95% and you have a 97.5% chance of success.  If you succeed again it goes up to 100% and you're set forever.  However, if either of them fail you just pick the other one, knowing it's safe, and have a 100% success rate forever.

I can replicate these mechanics just by having the player roll a d1000.  The first time their target number is 925.  The second is 975.  If they ever fail, or if they succeed two times they auto-succeed.  Granted, in this system the players lack any input and are given no choices to make, but it seems to me that if the player chooses the "correct" option or not is not based on anything but complete and utter luck, which seems to me like it really grants nothing more than the illusion of power to the player.  I understand that the illusion of choice can be a bit of a thrill, but that's really all this system seems to give.

What I think might be interesting is if the "correct" option was set at 80% or so, while the incorrect one started at 50%.  Every time the incorrect one is used the percentage goes up by 10%, to a maximum of 90%.  This way you never really know if you're picking the "correct" or "incorrect" one, since all you have to base it on is how frequently or not you fail.  With the other system if you ever failed at all you knew you were doing it wrong, whereas with this there's always the possibility, keeping the mystery alive.  Additionally, if you end up going with the "incorrect" one you end up with a different chance-scheme than you would from using the "correct" one, whereas in the other example as soon as you've used the "incorrect" one a few times in a row it becomes identical to the "correct" one and your choice becomes moot.  That might be fine with you, though.  There's no hard reason why the "incorrect" one should end up better than, worse than, or equal to the "correct" one after extended use.

This is an interesting idea.  I think that further meditation and discussion on this topic could create something pretty magical, but in its current state it just doesn't strike me as useful.  I'm interested to see where this leads.

Filip, it wouldn't destroy your delusion, because it's creative denial - you deny you were trying to author to begin with. Thus when you fail to author, it's not a bummer because hey, you 'never' try to move the planchet! (though when it comes to complete denial, there would be quite some emotional dissapointment - but I think here, since you go in knowing, that wont be a factor).

There seems to be a parralel between your 90% and Misha's idea. To be frank, I don't see the point of 'never really knowing' by sometimes failing on any option, and as such, its not a design goal. And having one option that is known to be 100% helps reinforce the most likely incorrect belief you chose the right answer, which is a good thing. Of course when you have an always working option, you might be thinking 'But am I deluding myself'? And I think that's good! Because you don't really know and can indulge the possiblity you aren't deluding yourself. Or I can, anyway. Also I think that if you always maintain the mystery, you wont ask 'Am I deluding myself' because since you'll fail sometimes, you wont imagine your option as always having been the correct answer. Maybe I don't get creative denial, but I don't see any fun in it unless you think that you actively think you might be deluding yourself, and then indulge in the idea anyway. It's only fun when it's a naughty indulgence! Or so it seems to me.

Misha - as I said, there would be around four options at the end, not just two. And although I didn't give design goals at the start, this is supposed to add strategy like a car stereo is supposed to add horsepower! Remember its embeded in a larger memory skill test sequence. This is a memory skill sequence with a twist, rather than an imagination empowerment tool with some other stuff inexplicably drapped around it.

Let's consider how this is presented to the player.

Screen 1: Simple Instruction

On screen is a dialog box that shows a combo of buttons...Left, Right, Fire. The player is told that this allows them a new move which does extra damage.

Screen 2: Application of Simple Instruction

The player returns to the combat field, and they are given an enemy to test their new move against.

Screen 3: Intermediate Instruction

On screen is a dialog box that shows a combo of buttons...Left, Right, Down, L1, Fire. The player is told that this allows deadly strikes that bypass armour.

Screen 4: Application of Intermediate Instruction

The player returns to the combat field, and they are given an enemy to test their new move against.

Screen 5: Advanced Instruction

On screen is a dialog box that shows four potential combos of buttons...
[A] Left, Right, Down, L1, L2, Fire. (Wrong)
Left, Right, Down, L1, Left, Fire. (Wrong)
[C] Left, Right, Down, L1, Right, Fire. (Wrong)
[D] Left, Right, Down, L1, R1, Fire. (Right)
The player is told that one of these is an instant kill strike, while the others are potential instant kill strikes (they may work, they may not).

Screen 4: Application of Intermediate Instruction

The player returns to the combat field, and they are given an enemy to test their new move against.

Player 1 gets to the final screen and mashes his buttons with the wrong combo [combo A]. He gets lucky a couple of times and is eventually told that his combo is working at 100%, but so would combo D if he'd continued using that one. He doesn't know the difference because he's been lucky with each strike.

Player 2 gets to the final screen and mashes his buttons with another wrong combo [combo B]. He gets unlucky and gets a bit frustrated. He perseveres until he finally pushes the percentage of his incorrect combo up to 100%. He is then told that his combo is at 100%, but Combo D would also be at this level if he'd chosen that one.

Player 3 gets to the final screen and mashes his buttons with a wrong combo [combo C]. He fails, but he remembers one of the other combos and tries that the next time [combo B], that one works. So he keeps trying that. Eventually he pushes it's rate of success up, and gets the familiar screen.

Player 4 gets to the final screen and picks the right combo. He does pretty well at it until he fails because he doesn't get the timing right. He get's frustrated and thinks he's picked the wrong combo. He persists and eventually gets told that combo D is correct along with a random other combo.

The four players gather and talk about their experiences. All four have conflicting stories and they try to piece together the correct combo. Even though D is the correct combo, the player who gets their timing slightly off tells a story that this combo resulted in a fail on some situations.

The players get frustrated and think that the game designer has played them all for fools.

This is especially the case when a lot of computer games that rely on combos also rely on factors such as timing that can be hard for a human to replicate perfectly.

I think this design goal is purely intended to frustrate players and limit the playability of the game to which it is attached.

V

Sorry, that's really alien thinking to me. In terms of what I intended/what my intention was, you have only guessed, but your now telling me as if you know? Honestly, I doubt you'd tell a player how to run his character - but you'd tell me the details of my own intention?

Anyway, I paused for a few days because I decided to just code the damn thing up instead of just talk: http://www.yoyogames.com/games/show/67910
It's rather...creepy?...to play it in a way, because it 'gets' me, even though I'm the author and I know the 'correct' end answer. I must try it sometime when someone else has chosen the correct end answer...even more creepy, I bet! Perhaps it'll prompt me to write a playtest report at some point.

Also, just to note it, there's a game there called Insight gun, where you could have someone rate your description of a move from 1 to 10, and it does more damage the higher the rating. Not exactly on topic, just thought I'd squeeze in a mention of it here: http://www.yoyogames.com/games/show/49855

Callan wrote:
Sorry, that's really alien thinking to me. In terms of what I intended/what my intention was, you have only guessed, but your now telling me as if you know? Honestly, I doubt you'd tell a player how to run his character - but you'd tell me the details of my own intention?

Well, regardless of presentation, the people you described are certain the game designer played them for fools, where a number of other conclusions could also be drawn and considered plausible. Despite room for uncertainty, they entertain none - if they feel frustrated, then their automatic conclusion - their only conclusion - is someone did done them wrong.

I'm not interested in engaging that line of thinking at all. It's even a design goal - the design is for people who entertain doubt on a regular basis (ie, people who question everything, including their own reactions). Indeed, any project I made that was supposed to engage that automatic conclusion thinking, would be for the purposes of trying to crack them out of that sort of thinking. Which reminds me, I have that mythic age roundhouse game to work on...

Callan wrote:
Well, regardless of presentation, the people you described are certain the game designer played them for fools, where a number of other conclusions could also be drawn and considered plausible. Despite room for uncertainty, they entertain none - if they feel frustrated, then their automatic conclusion - their only conclusion - is someone did done them wrong.

Nobody can explain the logical steps they could reach a conclusion by, because the assertion that there is always a way of logically reaching a conclusion with limited evidence, is bogus. As I said, they have evidence that could point to a number of plausible conclusions. Baring mind reading, they don't appear to have the evidence to nail it down to one conclusion. Despite that, they make a conclusion and are certain of it. Or if they are remaining in an uncertain, then you haven't made a point.

The whole 'no need to be defensive' comment is an ancient turn of phrase, either used out of mimiced habit, or deliberately refering to something as established fact to exploit common lacks of scrutiny in people, who because of that, would start treating it as established fact. Much like the above situation, I have no evidence to form either as a definate conclusion about your use. But given that my talking about other projects for 'cracking' was missread to mean this project is for cracking, the threads, the odds seem to be on this thread is breaking down.

I'm tempted to close this thread, but I'd like to leave it open on the off chance of other voices chiming in.