Skip to Content
 

Game traps

11 replies [Last post]
Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008

Hi

There are a lot of game design traps. Last year we discussed several of these problems and the discussion in the Topic of game design forum. This is just my personally list of how to use and prevent some of the traps.

Bach the leader
The players always attacking the leader (It is hard to be on top). The big problem with this is that in several games the player that is in the lead from start will never win.
How to prevent
- Limit number of attacks that can be done against a player.
- By doing the attack you will loose something (normally resources or game tempo).
- Add hidden scores (part of the score is unknown).
How to use
- This effect can be used to maintain some kind of status quo in the game.
- Some games (example Love Soap) can be built on this effect.

Bash the looser
The players gain favors for attacking weaker players. A week player will only be a resource for other players.
How to prevent
- Limit number of attacks that can be done against a player.
- By doing the attack you will loose something (normally resources or game tempo).
- A strong player will gain more if he/she attacks a stronger player then a week player.
- Week players are eliminated.
How to use
- This can be used to force some type of alliances in the game between the players.

Run away leader
If a game has a run away leader problem, there will be a leader that nobody can do anything about, but still they have to play the game to the end (for several more hours).
How to prevent the effect
- When a player gets a non beatable leader, the game will end.
- Add Leaders bashing to the game.
How to use the effect
- I don’t see how this can be used.

Losers left behind
One or several players are left behind and can not do anything for the outcome of the game. They are reduced to speed bumps (will only slow down the game).
How to prevent the effect
- Players that can not effect the outcome are eliminated.
- The weaker a player get more options and are more flexible.
- Let weaker player ally with strong player.
How to use the effect
- Use this to force players that are left behind to cooperate.

King making
King making is when a player can decide the outcome of the game without changing his/her own position. King making can also be if a player that are winning decides who is going to be on second place.
I like to play advanced civilization at convent. The problem is normally that there are a lot of players and only the players with the highest scores will hit the final. In the end, the player that is in the lead will try to convince the other players to maximize his score. That is another type of King making
How to prevent the effect
- Eliminate players that can not win the game.
- Every interaction will have a risk, for both the players (it can be a setback).
- Add hidden scores (part of the score is unknown).
How to use the effect
- If this happens in up to 10% of the times, this is a possibility for players to get even with a player that has misbehaved. (More then 1/10 of the times, the game becomes too random).

Nothing to do
When it doesn't matter what a player is doing. Nothing in the game will be effected anyway.
How to prevent the effect
- Add interaction to the game.
- Add several dimensions to the game and you can score in more then one way.
How to use the effect
- I don’t see how it could be used.

Never ending game
The complete game is can be a stalemate and no side can win if the other sides don’t give up.
How to prevent the effect
- Include a time limit or a number of turn limit.
- Reduce the resources each time.
How to use the effect
- I have tested a game that used this as a cooperation mechanism. Nobody could win if the players did not cooperate (and did some agreements). The intrigues become interesting.

Run for victory
In the last turn, all players do see that this is the last turn and run for victory. No one plan for tomorrow.
How to prevent the effect
- Random game ending.
- Remove turns from the game (victory is counted after a player is done).
- Every player has a hidden victory condition.
How to use the effect
- Some games does benefit from a Run for victory. The players get a final chance to put a dagger in other players (and sometimes allies) back.

Eliminate players
A player is eliminated early in a game and has to wait.
How to prevent the effect
- When a player is eliminated, the game will end.
- Eliminated players can reappear in the game (and still have a (smaller) chance).
- Shorten the game time.
How to use the effect
- To reduce the Kingmaker and Bach the looser effect.

Multi solo playing
All players are playing the game for them self and nothing can be done to change anything for another player.
How to prevent the effect
- Limit the resources.
- Add interaction
How to use the effect
- Why would I like to use this effect?

Seet order
You will benefit or loose depending on the order of the players around the table. Example: If you sit after a newcomer or a veteran it matter for your final score.
How to prevent the effect
- Include random player order.
- The player order depends on the previous round.
- The players do hidden orders.
How to use the effect
- Should not be used.

Player down time
The time between the player will do anything in the game is too long (what is too long is depending on the game).
How to prevent the effect
- Some player actions can be done at the same time.
- Reduce the number of actions a player can do when it is his/her time.
- Player downtime is often an effect of poor components or a game board that is hard to get an overview of.
How to use the effect
- Always try to reduce player's downtime.

Dead end
The player get into a dead end and can not do anything to continue the game. Example: In an adventure game you fall into a trap and can not get up.
How to prevent the effect
- Testing, testing, and testing.
- Players can restart in the game.
How to use the effect
- None.

Expansion hysteria
New expansions will change the game and the rules (and some components from the previous (or original) game can not be used anymore.) Two of best example of this is Magic and Squad Leaders. Both games failed in there first expansions. Magic did the new cards too powerful and SL did the game unplayable).
How to prevent the effect
- Plan the possible expansions when the design is planned.
How to use the effect
-

//Johan

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Game traps

Smooth spectrum: Units, troops, items or other game elements span a range that is totally covered, and every possible permutation is included in the game. So if units have attack and defense scores from 1 to 5, the game features all 25 unit types.
Problem: This limits tactical decisions, as players will never have to worry about tradeoffs between abilities. They can customize every unit for a specific task. Fewer hard dicisions means less tension, and less fun.
Solution: 1.) Set a minimum difference between the stats of units, to force tradeoffs during play. 2.) Distinguish units in ways other than numerically.

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game traps

Great stuff!

Hamumu
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game traps

I don't agree that Seat Order Effect should not be used ("How to use the effect"). In fact, it can be a source of great fun! For example, the game Citadels gives you a choice of character, but each character also occupies a specific spot in the turn order. What order you'll play in becomes a factor in your character decision. This is definitely an example of using the problem of seat order effect for a good purpose. Similarly, in Uno, turn order determines a lot (but it's been so long I don't remember what exactly), but there are cards that change the order.

Of course, these examples depend on having a way of changing the turn order. If there's no way to change the order, and yet the order matters, you do indeed have a problem! Although it might be interesting if the order effects were varying, and it was a matter of choosing at game start what spot you want in some way. Like you have a strategy that revolves around being last, or first, or after a certain player (of course, so will someone else, and you'll have to fight over that position).

Rick-Holzgrafe
Rick-Holzgrafe's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/22/2008
Game traps

You list Player Elimination as a trap, which I think is correct; but you also list it as a solution for other traps. I gotta go on record here, I don't like player elimination unless it happens only near the end of a game. Who wants to sit around while everybody else has fun?

Shadows Over Camelot has player elimination, but it's handled in a very elegant way. It's a cooperative game in which it's nearly always best to keep all players in the game as long as possible, and most of the decisions that could reduce a player's life points to zero (eliminating him) are under that player's control. The result is that players are eliminated only in the last few turns of the game, and only when it is the best way to help all players win. (Also, getting eliminated does not mean you lose!)

Arkham Horror is another cooperative game with elimination. During most of the game, if your character is eliminated, you just pick a different character and join right back in. Again, because it's cooperative, you haven't lost just because your character was "devoured." (Gotta love these games about ancient, sanity-destroying gods!) In the final stages of the game players can be eliminated permanently, but by that time the end of the game is only moments away and everybody hangs over the table to see how it all comes out.

In neither case are players left to sit idle for more than a couple of minutes, and in neither care is player elimination used to "fix" or avoid a different game-design trap.

While I agree that traps like King-making, loser-bashing and so on are bad, I think that those problems need to be solved in other ways. I'm here to play games! At least if I'm getting bashed I'm still in the game. That's better than twiddling my thumbs while waiting for the rest of the gang to duke it out.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Game traps

Nice compilation. This is the kind of stuff that should be placed on the wiki(eventually).

I made a copy of it on my computer and I'll make sure to worship it each week.

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Game traps

Rick-Holzgrafe wrote:
You list Player Elimination as a trap, which I think is correct; but you also list it as a solution for other traps. I gotta go on record here, I don't like player elimination unless it happens only near the end of a game. Who wants to sit around while everybody else has fun?

This I'm totally agree with you about...

Quote:
While I agree that traps like King-making, loser-bashing and so on are bad, I think that those problems need to be solved in other ways. I'm here to play games! At least if I'm getting bashed I'm still in the game. That's better than twiddling my thumbs while waiting for the rest of the gang to duke it out.

Sometimes it is a better solution that eliminates the player then having the player in the game. As soon you use the "eliminate player as a solution you directly got the eliminate player as a trap/problem and have to solve that.

// Johan

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Game traps

Hamumu wrote:
I don't agree that Seat Order Effect should not be used ("How to use the effect"). In fact, it can be a source of great fun! For example, the game Citadels gives you a choice of character, but each character also occupies a specific spot in the turn order. What order you'll play in becomes a factor in your character decision. This is definitely an example of using the problem of seat order effect for a good purpose. Similarly, in Uno, turn order determines a lot (but it's been so long I don't remember what exactly), but there are cards that change the order.

I did not think about Citadels has used the seat order problem as an effect, more as they have solved it with hidden character.
A game that has used the seat order effect is Bang, where your position around the table is everything (if you don’t have special weapons or abilities, you can only attack the next to you). Bang has built the completed concept around the hidden goals.
Seat order could be used

// Johan

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Game traps

Hedge-o-Matic wrote:
Smooth spectrum: Units, troops, items or other game elements span a range that is totally covered, and every possible permutation is included in the game. So if units have attack and defense scores from 1 to 5, the game features all 25 unit types.
Problem: This limits tactical decisions, as players will never have to worry about tradeoffs between abilities. They can customize every unit for a specific task. Fewer hard dicisions means less tension, and less fun.
Solution: 1.) Set a minimum difference between the stats of units, to force tradeoffs during play. 2.) Distinguish units in ways other than numerically.

About 10 years ago I played a lot of DBM (it is a tabletop game) against some of my friends. It was often so that if we got few PIPS (actions) in a turn we played better then if we had more than we could spend.

The tactical aspect does often increase when you limit the options, player's possibilities or components. There is also a down side to this. Some units becomes useless against others and if you reduce the options too much, you got another problem that not is in my list One tactic always win. That problem is often solved with add more options.

// Johan

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Game traps

Yeah, there's a bit of a balancing act here. But I'd say that limitations generally increase tactics. As an example, consider Shogi, the Japanese incarnation of the Chess family. 8 different pieces each, a total of 20 per player. Then consider the Dai Dai Shogi varient, a monsterous behemoth with scores of individual pieces, hundereds per player. Tactics vanish in a menange of overlapping complexity. Playable, but not in any strategically or even tactically deep manner. Just too many darn pieces for any strategies to develop.

Much of the idea of tactics and strategies revolves around the foresight needed to predict good play by your opponent. As the options multiply, this becomes less clear for the players in control of their forces, and doubly obscure for the player trying to forecast the opposition. Thus, planning is doubly hindered.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Game traps

The Decamino Effect: This is the insertion (during expansions, or whatever) of units or rules of ever-increasing complexity. These are units with so many special rules that it takes a moment to figure out what they actually do, and much longer to imagine a scenario where they might be useful. Generally, you know you've got a Decamino when you have to develop a special strategy to even make use of a new rule or unit, since it won't work "organically" with normal play.
How to avoid: Limit yourself when adding new units and special-case rules, and remember that emergent complexity is far more powerful than finicky whirligig rules and units. Complexity should best arrive through overlapping layers of simplicity.

Note: I dubbed these rules Decaminos due to the fact that nice-to fit together Quatrominos (like Tetris pieces) are more versitile than Pentaminos (combinations of five blocks), and Hexaminos (six blocks) are more awkward still, with an ever-increasing tendancy to trap empty spaces between two of them when put together. Decaminos is just an extension of that idea. Inspired by the funky, gadgety feel of latter-day Magic cards.

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Game traps

Hedge-o-Matic wrote:
The Decamino Effect: This is the insertion (during expansions, or whatever) of units or rules of ever-increasing complexity. These are units with so many special rules that it takes a moment to figure out what they actually do, and much longer to imagine a scenario where they might be useful. Generally, you know you've got a Decamino when you have to develop a special strategy to even make use of a new rule or unit, since it won't work "organically" with normal play.
How to avoid: Limit yourself when adding new units and special-case rules, and remember that emergent complexity is far more powerful than finicky whirligig rules and units. Complexity should best arrive through overlapping layers of simplicity.

Expansions have there own problem list but all ends up in the same basic problems:
- We have Hedge-o-Matic described problem above.
- There is the Warhammer effect, where expansions is a part of the game, but each expansion has be harder and better the previous one. Games Workshop has reduced the effect but it is still there.
- The Magic effect where new cards together with old cards can have a huge effect on the game (one tactic always win). WotC has solved this by make older expansions (and starters) obsolete.
- There is the Squad leader effect where the new modules were incompatible with older rules and the rules had to be rewritten. Avalon Hill solved this problem by releasing ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) that had a plan.

All of these are solved by planning from start (OK WotC wants to make older cards obsolete so they can sell more cards). Think big and make the game small. When the game is in the design status, write a list of all big and small expansions that you could think of. Then the design should be done in a way that those expansions could be added without valuation the basic game (just adds on).

I also got another problem (or trap) with expansions is the mass effect:
- The test group played Killer Bunnies a couple of times just as to round up the game session. We discovered that if you add the expansions, the game got to many cards and become too random. The basic variant required some strategy, but with expansions (3 or 4) it was just as fun as rolling dice without any goal.
Some games can not have expansions.

// Johan

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut