Make a better game–limit the player

Published on April 10, 2012 By Frogboy In Elemental Dev Journals

Stardock’s Jon Shafer has a great article on game design that has been spreading like wild-fire around the Internet.

With regards to the strategy genre in particular, restrictions on unit movement is one of the best examples of how limitations can make a game better. The inability of land units to enter water is why ships are so valuable – and just plain cool. Gaining access to new units with unique ‘powers’ is a major motivation for many players. Just like in economics, scarcity is what drives value – the fact that most units are unable to perform certain actions is what makes the few which can so much fun.

Movement restrictions also show that there’s a place for even permanent limits. An example from the Civ series is how mountains became impassable for the first time in Civ 4. It’s a subtle change that very few players would point to as a major innovation, but even something small like this helps breathe life into the map. Instead of mountain ranges being just another part of the map with a slight movement penalty, they suddenly transformed into true barriers that now require serious consideration.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments (Page 2)

Silicor

on Apr 11, 2012

Frogboy

reply 11

What he's talking about, and I agree (Even though it demonstrates my weaknesses as a designer) is that choices need to matter

Which is exactly why good AI is so important. No choice is important if the AI can't compete and the game quickly becomes boring. This is the single most important facet for the success of FE.

Another (maybe not so obvious example): build killer stack = win, is not fun over the long run. There have to be negatives to every approach for it to be fun. If killer stacks are possible, and a player takes that path then it should become difficult to defend... logistics should become troublesome... something to counterbalance this player approach.

Anyway, I'm just glad to see where your head is at because this is definitely the right direction. Just remember, at the end of the day, the FE fun factor is going to be largely determined by the AI.

Cavil

on Apr 11, 2012

Frogboy

reply 11

In Fallen Enchantress, by contrast, it's fewer choices but they are distinct and meaningful.

I ll agree with that. I dont care if there is plenty of choices or just few, i just want them to have a real effect on the long run.

Bellack

on Apr 11, 2012

Edwin99

reply 13

Choices that have a dramatic effect gameplay make a game really interesting. In a TOEE RPG Modd you could 1) foil a plot to sabotage the construction of a castle and trigger the appearance of a castle on the main map, 2) sabotage the castle's construction and gain a favorable introduction to the big bad or 3) take no action the watch this RPG world develop in a semi-random fashion without your character gaining any benefit from these developments. Each result had a dramatic; but different, effect on the game.

Likewise; on another modd, there were several ways to fulfill a quest to retrieve the egg of a giant eagle - each one had its consequences. First 1) slay the druid guarding the path to the eagles nest (this made the druids your enemy) - most players choose this method initially and suffered the consequences. Method 2) was to put the druid to sleep and steal the egg while he was sleeping. They key was stealing the egg before the druid woke up. Sending a single fast moving lightly armored character up the narrow path to retreive the egg was the solution; however, it took several reboots/replays before most players discovered this. Method 3) was to have a character move silently past the druid in the shadow of night (yep - you could sneak past the druid guard at night - but not during the day). Last but least, you wanted to time your foray up the path to arrive at the nest when the mother eagle was not there (or was sleeping) - else risk attack by the giant Eagle.

Similarly, in a TOEE Keep to the Borderlands Modd you had a quest to quietly acquire 100 swords - and there were several ways to to this. 1) Steal them, 2) Purchase them from the smithy in the Keep and raise the suspicions of the local lord that would trigger consquences for the baron that hired you, or 3) venture far and wide to purchase 100 swords in different settelements. Each solution had dramatically different consequences.

Are you talking about the Temple of Elemental Evil computer game or the D&D Pen and Paper module?

larienna

on Apr 11, 2012

I would not say "Make the game better" but rather raise the level of complexity or the level of details.

For example, the "Wizard kings" board game use a plain hex map as a board:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/200018/wizard-kings

So this creates a dynamic where in order to send a large force into a target hex, you need to be able to surround your enemy. It also create interesting simulation of blocking a bridge to prevent the enemy from passing since he can only send 1 unit at a time.

All that added complexity also increase the possible effects that special abilities, like spells, could affect. Instead of having spell that increase movement or ignore terrain movement penalty, you can also add abilities regarding the hex sides and roads.

So restrictions increases the complexity and details of the game. It open what I call "the area of effect" of a game which is the possible elements that can be affected by a special ability. But it is not always the best thing to do. In some design, you might not actually want that extra level of complexity and detail. In video games, complexity is more welcomed because the computer can compute stuff for the player, but it's no the case in board games.

Tasunke

on Apr 11, 2012

Alstein

reply 14

Some things it's ok to be complicated like that. Design rules are never absolutes.

I agree.

For instance, Unrest levels (not to mention combat) are a complicated part of the Total War series ... yet its something that gives variety to the series.

-> Do I conquer the nation with similar culture or different culture? The former are our allies, and I would hate to break up an alliance like that, yet the latter would have higher unrest, and I would need larger occupation armies for those regions.

Edwin99

on Apr 11, 2012

Bellack

reply 18

Are you talking about the Temple of Elemental Evil computer game or the D&D Pen and Paper module?

I am talking about the Temple of Elemental Evil computer game. As originally released it had 1) GREAT TACTICAL BATTLES, 2) poor story line, 3) no serious consquences for player actions and 4) no built in modding tools (aka NWN); however, player modds added new spells, quests and adventures. The most popular mod is available from www.co8.org and the game itself can be purchased from www.gog.com for $5.99USD. If SD does an Elemental RPG I would like to see it include tactical battles based on the TOEE system.

Vallu751

on Apr 11, 2012

Restrictions don't have to increase complexity.

For a simple example, consider a game that has units that can move to any adjacent squares. Then change the rules so that units can only move directly forward, left of right. Movement has been restricted, but it hasn't become more complex.

There's an interesting geeklist on Boardgamegeek about Depth vs complexity. The definitions for depth and complexity in the geeklist are these:

HIGH COMPLEXITY
Ton's of fiddly rules, lots of board maintenance.

MEDIUM COMPLEXITY
Some meat on the bone in terms of system rules that I have to take into account every turn, but doesn't weigh the game down.

LOW COMPLEXITY
Brain dead simple mechanics, silky smooth gameplay.

HIGH DEPTH
My brain burns with all the potential options, and I always feel like there's something more to learn from playing.

MEDIUM DEPTH
Usually it's not too hard to choose from a few different strategies over the course of the game, and a few tactics on any given turn.

LOW DEPTH
Moves are always painfully obvious, not much decision making, game plays itself.

Tasunke

on Apr 11, 2012

larienna

reply 19

But movement looks much more complex than it seems. First, you get mobility boost if your unit start and ends on a road. But most importantly, there is a limit in the amount of units you can move into a hex for each hex side. So an open plain hex side allows you to move in 2 units, while an hexside with a bridge or mountain only allows you to move in 1.

So this creates a dynamic where in order to send a large force into a target hex, you need to be able to surround your enemy. It also create interesting simulation of blocking a bridge to prevent the enemy from passing since he can only send 1 unit at a time.

All that added complexity also increase the possible effects that special abilities, like spells, could affect. Instead of having spell that increase movement or ignore terrain movement penalty, you can also add abilities regarding the hex sides and roads.

So restrictions increases the complexity and details of the game. It open what I call "the area of effect" of a game which is the possible elements that can be affected by a special ability. But it is not always the best thing to do. In some design, you might not actually want that extra level of complexity and detail. In video games, complexity is more welcomed because the computer can compute stuff for the player, but it's no the case in board games.

Interesting. Yes, 'open-ended' complexity is bad ... but a decent level of behind the scenes complexity is good ESPECIALLY if the UI does the bean-counting for you ... just look at the BuG mod for Civ IV BTS. (Or at least some parts of it)

While some object to the bean-counting that Bug does (some call it "playing the game for you") When we have the extra complexity in Elemental, that is, the Role playing element, I think it is worth it to allow "we-done it for you" UI bean-counting so that the player can focus more on the Macro + RPG elements and less on the Micro.

But that is the thing, I think there should be restrictions, but I think there also is a Space available for microscopic details ... but only in situations where they are needed. (and these should be few and far between, but still should be/could be present somewhere I think).

Now complexity for complexity's sake isn't desired ... but, say for instance in the City Conquering/unrest departments, it may be needed.

MadMagnus

on Apr 11, 2012

Rishkith

reply 8

He misses the mark. It isn't restrictions that matter at all.

As Neo says in the second Matrix movie "The problem is Choice". It is meaningful choices that matter and make the game better. To make the choice meaningful, the act of choosing must place restrictions upon the player.

This is why Shooters on rails or any type of "railroading" has a negative connotation in gaming. Restricting a player is a bad thing except when it provides the opportunity to make a meaningful choice.

Star Fox isn't looked at in a negative light.

DsRaider

on Apr 11, 2012

Silicor

reply 16

Yes this is the biggest problem I have with most strategy games. I couldn't agree with you more. When games can be automatically won simply by building up a big enough stack then they become boring. In the context of this thread you need to limit large stacks so that players are still faced with choices even when they have a killer stack. This is not to say it should be impossible to get a large stack but rather a player's ability to use them needs to be limited. The ability to build a stack and then send it out to conquer city after city totally ruins a game.

larienna

on Apr 11, 2012

There's an interesting geeklist on Boardgamegeek about Depth vs complexity.

OK, maybe complexity was the wrong word. The idea was restrictions did not necessarily made the game better but rather different.

I am even exploring ways to design games by having as few restrictions as possible to the player's actions.

Bellack

on Apr 11, 2012

Edwin99

reply 21

Quoting Bellack,
reply 18

Are you talking about the Temple of Elemental Evil computer game or the D&D Pen and Paper module?

I am talking about the Temple of Elemental Evil computer game. As originally released it had 1) GREAT TACTICAL BATTLES, 2) poor story line, 3) no serious consquences for player actions and 4) no built in modding tools (aka NWN); however, player modds added new spells, quests and adventures. The most popular mod is available from www.co8.org and the game itself can be purchased from www.gog.com for $5.99USD. If SD does an Elemental RPG I would like to see it include tactical battles based on the TOEE system.

I did think it had the best Tactical battle of any D&D game (because it was faithful to the 3.5 rules which I really like.) I did download a CO8 mode several years ago but did not see a difference. I'll have to see if they have any more mods

Vallu751

on Apr 12, 2012

larienna

reply 26

OK, maybe complexity was the wrong word. The idea was restrictions did not necessarily made the game better but rather different.

I am even exploring ways to design games by having as few restrictions as possible to the player's actions.

Ok, that makes sense.

One thing I learned during a brief time spent with improvisation theatre was that sometimes limitations are necessary to feed creativity. If two people walk on a stage and are told to act out anything, they'll probably paralyze unless they've practised it. By contrast, if two people walk on the stage and are told one is a shop clerk, the other a customer trying to purchase a blue T-shirt and told to act, they'll very quickly start talking.

I guess we just need to find the correct restrictions to the given game and situation that are needed to make it work. And you're right, it's just a different game. I'm guessing in a way for FE, Frogboy means that they lack restrictions in certain places that are needed to make the game go from the paralysis part to the acting.

The_Harlequin

on Apr 12, 2012

Awesome read... I totally agree with him. And I'm glad Jon is part of Stardock's team

Tasunke

on Apr 12, 2012

Hmm. Should we implement a 2 armies per tile system?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!