Co-operative Games - how often should inexperienced players lose?

If it's cooperative, it means players need to play TOGETHER to WIN. As per my thoughts ATM there are a lot of factors. One is duration of play.

How INVESTED are your players?

There is a difference between 30 minutes, 60 minutes and over 90 minutes. The more INVESTED the players are, the more likely the will play until Victory or a Loss.

Meanwhile shorter games that end within 30 minutes may END quicker... But may not prove to be as CAPTIVATING. This lends to your whole: "...but will the players want to play AGAIN...?"

I did not answer your question ... I will do that now...

I think the thing that bothers me is the whole "early on" aspect. Like I said the more players are INVESTED into the game... the more likely they will push forwards, win or lose. And I think that "early on" losses are not very "encouraging". I get it, you don't know the rules well, you don't know the work-arounds, you don't know what awaits you, etc.

Its because of first timers IGNORANCE that you say they should "lose early on..." I personally don't like that. If it was a 120 minute game (2 hours) and the players were on their seats the entire time... My GUARANTEE THAT game will get played AGAIN especially if the players LOST!

It's like my Pandemic example of having a fifth (5th) Player to beat the game more easily. But it doesn't at all motivate me to want to PLAY AGAIN! We won and I understood how challenging the game could be...

So losing after 30 minutes (lose early) versus lose after 120 minutes (an experience which is more cherished) has a dramatic difference in end-result.

Why do you want the players to "lose early"???

Even in a Wargame... They may not DEFEAT the Final Boss (because they are to novice to be properly prepared for such a battle) ... But at LEAST they got there! The odds were stacked against them... But the next time they play... Perhaps they will be better prepared.

My problem is with the whole "early" aspect of the question.

Nobody wants to LOSE EARLY. If so, the odds are some players will think the game is TOO HARD and never play the game again. You need to strike a balance between HARD and POSSIBLE. And drop the whole "early" loss in a CO-OP game is of interest to NO-ONE.

It's got to be challenging and in the END, DIFFICULT.

To answer your question, I propose a CHART:

This chart says that Players should progress relatively quickly early on in a game. And then slow down as the AI progress reaches a tipping point (Position #10). Where the AI progress increases ABOVE the players progress making the game MORE CHALLENGING and a bit HARD to play. Until at some point (the end Position #15) where the Players close the GAP and "Beat the game".

That's why I was a bit unsure about the whole "EARLY ON". This GRAPH, although not perfect, clearly demonstrates how a CO-OP game should evolve. Towards the END it's TOUGH going and very challenging... But the Players are REWARDED more in the last few rounds much like the starting few rounds... Giving them HOPE that IF they just manage to make it a few more rounds... They may yet WIN the game.

Again everything presented here is just "theory" and one designer's perspective. Cheers!

Note #1: I THINK the graph is right in saying that 2/3 (1 to 10) of the game the players are in control with increasing difficulty from the game. The last 1/3 (10 to 15) is a bit chaotic and very challenging... I think this graph does a good job of expressing my own perspective to you!

Note #2: And although the Player Progress resembles the progress of your successful Kickstarter (KS) this is just a coincidence. I knew already what that curve would look like based on HOW I explained the AI progress as compared to the Players. Just a coincidence...

Note #3: Clearly EARLY-ON you want to give the players the impression that they are "invincible" that early on they are riding high and will totally rule the game. However as the game progresses those feeling of being "invincible" become less apparent as the AI Progress gains more and more ground on the players.

I think that's what MAKES for an EPIC CO-OP game. Anyone can play, but few will reach the end and even fewer will WIN the game (in the end). Getting to the END is in-itself an accomplishment ... But winning is something very special and should occur once and a while... With a lucky die roll too... (Just to piss most deterministic people off) LOL

Note #4: You may also want to penalize players for making the wrong "choice" or "poor decisions" early on which may impact the game further down-the-line. They may not affect players in the beginning ... But as time progresses those "few losses" in the beginning become real handicaps towards the near-end...

Note #5: Players should NEVER be rewarded for "poor play" ... But at the same time, when it is their first time playing NOT understanding the consequence of "poor outcomes" (and/or decisions) can be critical further on in the end-game.

But to directly answer: "What percentage of the time should the players lose the game early on?"

My answer is 0% (1/3 of the game). 75% (2/3 of the game) and 90% (3/3 of the game). 10% are VICTORIOUS (CO-OP together).

So the answer to YOUR question is 0%. Overall 90% should lose (Playing the game). And 10% should WIN (a hard fought victory)!

I am working on a co-operative game that can also be played as a competitive co-op. Additionally, one deck can be swapped out to require different strategies and provide differing difficulty levels. The game is an optimization puzzle. So in the beginning the purely co-operative play will aid inexperienced players to learn the game, but the competitive element in the variant may cause players to risk reducing optimization to try and get ahead. So after the puzzle is "solved" for each deck in the purely co-op mode, I'm hoping players will still have interest in the competitive play.

In my limited play testing, I have yet to have the players win, but they were very close nearly every time. Based on feedback, I need to add mini prizes for the individual victories, but otherwise had decent interest. So I am working on refining the rules for clarity and tinkering with balance. Despite losing, most of the players we're eager to see the next iteration. So I don't think it's necessarily a deterrent for inexperienced players to lose the first time or two, so long as they see a potential path to victory in the first few games.

I think alot of it depends on your target audience, and thus theme. If your game is a sci-fi horror game, player should probably loose more than half the time. If you are targeting an entry to gaming group, target more like 20%.

Along this line, I will second anyone who suggested giving options for ramping dificulty

The more important thing though, is that if your players loose, they can think of some choice they could have made differently so they could have won. They need a sense of agency, otherwise the randomness in the game will feel too controlling

As I've both played, designed, and developed co-op games, I generally agree with the premise that it's harder for newer players, but at no time should a co-op (like a wargame played solo) be solvable.

Yes, it's a puzzle, but not at all in the same way as an actual jigsaw puzzle. There are definitely elements revealed over multiple plays/attempts, but a good co-op should never reward anyone with a guaranteed victory, even at 80% or higher. Generally, new folks will have a 10% of chance of winning and that climbs quickly into the the 20%-40% range, with a high end topping off in the mid-to-high 60% range. If I can never lose, it's time to sell off that game equal to that with a 10% chance of success.

Were I to put my personal stamp on a game in terms of a co-op I'd like to play often, I would want to have an overall 33% win record. One outta three would be satisfactory enough for me.

I would also like to be able to increase the challenge level in small increments, either through baked-in difficulty tiers, or house rules. Any more difficult and I would likely shelf it or math trade it. Any easier, and I would likely teach it to younger players or make my own house rules anyway, were I to find it captivating enough otherwise.

Increases playability.
Although, you can assure you reach the 33%.

You would have loved "Space Kraken"... Daniel (@Man_Over_Game) will be getting the gamebook (I promised to mail it out this week) after discussions between him and Adam (@AdamRobinGamesARG) ... It was a question of first come, first served.

If you like RPGs... I'm sure you'd LOVE "Space Kraken". See I'm on the other side of things. I like simple rules and generally speaking more simple games. As such that how I design games. I enjoy playtesting my own games "ad nauseum". They don't bore me, because generally speaking they are what "I LIKE".

I don't think your opinion stinks either. I just wanted an explanation... If indeed you enjoy the "story" components ... Well then you wouldn't like a game like Pandemic. It's got no real story. Heck it's almost a Euro if you don't count the world map and destinations are being the storyline unfolding before you... There isn't much in terms of evolution of some kind of storyline. It's just a GAME. Or as Lewis puts it a PUZZLE.

You'd have to PLAY pandemic and then compare it to those STORY-Games.

Because those kind of CO-OP games are not at all very VARIED. Sure the outbreaks occur at different locations, yes you shuffled the outbreaks when you reach a certain card and then yes the locations with outbreaks will spread to nearby locations... It's not that it is NOT creative... It's just because it's the SAME thing every time.

Meanwhile a gamebook like "Space Kraken" is all about ADVENTURE and STORYLINES to follow and freeform exploration of a planet, station, etc. You really have the room for OPTIONS like an RPG. Well that's the gist of it: It's a Science Fiction Dungeon Crawler. So an RPG-in-a-book... It takes about 8 to 10 hours to complete one playthru ... And there are different modes: simulation, IRL, etc. The difficulty comes from where you can STOP and put the book away. The simulation allows you to close it at ANY time. Whereas the "IRL" (In-Real-Life) mode forces you to play until you reach a save station...

This is like your D&D Adventures but Sci-Fi... It's also a SOLO gamebook. Meaning that you play mostly solitary. (But it can be played multi-player too: up to 4 players).

Anyhow this is a digression ... What I wanted to know was what you thought about CO-OP games and what kinds of games you have played that match the criteria in the OP. And story-heavy games were NOT the ones that I was thinking about. As Lewis said he explained how a friend "solved" Pandemic...

If you compare Pandemic (the game) to RPGs ... You'll see that there is a STARK difference. Pandemic is just a GAME. RPGs have all kinds of stories and rich with quests, missions, dungeons, bosses, etc. Pandemic has none of this. Just cities on the world map and outbreaks that spread to adjacent locations if you don't have a character who can reduce the outbreaks...

In any event, I suggest you and your group PLAY "Pandemic". It's a good game (the "core"/original) and then tell me your thoughts. You'll see this KIND of CO-OP game is very different. And I'd be surprised if you said anything other than: "I'd play the game every now and then..."

Regards!

What did you think about Pandemic "re-playability" value??? I can picture playing the game and losing rather easily even IF we beat the game the first time that I had played it. BUT to be fair, we did cheat with five (5) players as the game states from 2 to 4 players.

I honestly think, had we LOST ... I may be more inclined to PLAY AGAIN. But since we beat the game ... I don't really see the appeal to play it some more. It's a CO-OP game ... And if I was to compare it with competitive games (Player vs. Player) I think that competitive play encourages more of a "You beat me X times and I've won Y times." It doesn't become so much about ONLY the game.

Like for example "Forbidden Desert" card layout looks similar to "Crystal Heroes" end-game layout (when both players have played all their Game Tiles). Since it's a competitive game which a Tactical layer ... The goal becomes "What Crystals are in the area of play" and what dice rolls do I get for collecting "Crystals". So there is some LUCK (dice rolling) which makes the game LESS "deterministic" and a bit about chance... It also matters which crystals you get to choose from at each victorious conquest.

The bottom line, IMHO, I think competitive games have much HIGHER replayability ... Because it's NOT about the GAME ... It's about the interaction between the players. When you BEAT a CO-OP game, it's like understanding how the "motor" was built. Afterwards there is no mystery in the game itself: you know HOW to beat it.

Competitive games are always VERSUS an opponent. So the experiences are different in how each player approaches the game.

CO-OP games are like always playing the SAME AI opponent. It's generally the same thing over and over or more of the same. I've designed a CO-OP scenario for TradeWorlds (TW) and I modeled it on the SOLO Derelict scenario. Basically it expands on the SOLO scenario for up to 4 players. How? Well the lose-goal for 1-Player is when the Derelict reaches "6" for the "Critical Mass". For 2-Players is "10" and for 3+ Players is "12". So the game works WELL as a SOLO scenario... And collectively, 4-Players can get a similar feel with "4 x 3" = "12" for the Critical Mass.

It's not that easy. The SOLO scenario is rather "challenging" but can be beaten. The 4-Player version is even HARDER because of the odds. But that's the thing... For the CO-OP scenario to be FUN ... Players must lose and try to figure out HOW to OPTIMIZE their moves and hope for some LUCKY rolls too!

But it's a CO-OP game blended in with all the other Scenarios ... Which gives TW high replayability. You can vary what you play... More expansions mean alternative ways to WIN the game... And you have from 1 to 4 Players worthwhile of competitiveness.

I'm just saying that GAMES designed as CO-OP are a bit "handicapped". I am working on such a "CO-OP" game in which there are 27 distinct scenarios. Which means even though it is a CO-OP game... There are 27 ways that the game plays and it is random until the end of the FIRST (1st) phase. That to me feels like "replayability"... Because it's rarely the SAME scenario you play. And remember you can LOSE too! If the scenario is a harder one... The players may lose and then wait until the scenario comes up AGAIN to say: "Hmm... We've played this before and lost. Let's figure out what we did wrong and try to win this time!"

Anyhow TL;DR probably. Enough said.

Why not make a list of things to think of before designing a co-op?

Ways to improve the interaction between players.
Ways to improve replayability.

Not sure what the word is for it, but a lot of games pull this off through mechanics that influence multiple moving parts.

Basically, look at every game by Days of Wonder.

Taking Ticket to Ride for example. In it, players spend resources to buy roads to complete routes for points. A road that one player bought can't be used by another, causing the game to become more and more challenging to complete your routes over time.

The chaos created from players all passively trying to complete their individual goals also ends up forcing each player to adapt around each-other's actions. Even if it's a non-aggressive play, it can still royally mess with your plans.

Even though it's a fairly simple game, each decision from a player influences the decisions of others, and early-game decisions directly influence actions you take later on.

They then repeat this formula with basically all of their games, from Smallworlds to 7 Wonders, with just varying levels of complexity and methods of gameplay (SW being Risk while 7W is Civilization), and make some excellently replayable games as a result.

Now, DoW generally makes PvP games, but you can take those same ideals and apply them to a cooperative game.

To put it simply, have players (accidentally) mess up each -other's plans, and have enough means to solve a problem that the players are better incentivized to change plans than they are to power through the problems. That methodical chaos (and the need to adapt) is exactly the reason why Roguelikes (the kings of "Replayability") are so popular, so I think it's best to follow that example.

Weirdly enough, I've noticed that class-based games (like Arkham Horror) have fairly low replayability, since classes often require a player to succeed in a specific way, which means they're sucking it up during low moments instead of figuring out how to adapt (since doing something you're not specialized in is rarely worth it).

Adaptation means new gameplay, and vice-versa.

Great question!

Removing the restrictions of a class-based system means that all players potentially have access to all options in the game. That autonomy and flexibility, however, means that the play group must make decisions about "who will do what," or who will carry a specific piece of equipment, who will take the front rank, who will be left behind to guard the fort, etc.

There's no longer an obvious choice in skill- or ability-based decisions or scenarios. This flies in the face of games that I've previously complimented, such as Forbidden Island or Forbidden Desert, and I wonder if those games started in the prototype stage with generic players, and it was only after playtesting that the specialized roles emerged/evolved.

It's an interesting parallel to life: Just because you can do everything from the same starting point doesn't mean you will.

As an aside, I believe that an important aspect to many games is that they make every player feel...sated. That they get the exact amount of stress and complexity that they're looking for. By having roles be determined by the players instead of the mechanics, each player is getting exactly what they want out of the game.

I can't comment on your game too much - just a lack of information for now - but I don't think anyone will be too butthurt if RNG screwed over a friend.

Just to confirm, your game uses RNG (dice), then a player decision (token selection), then RNG again ("In Trouble" into "Gunned Down")?

Arkham Horror has something similar (decisions are made, RNG is then checked) and rarely is RNG the factor for how players gauge one another, from my experience.

The only real reason I think quarterbacking would be a big problem (in regards to this example) was if the player's logic was flawed in the first place. For example, "In Trouble" carries greater risks than is initially obvious, and the experienced player tries to take charge. Happens in Arkham Horror, too, thinking about it.

When designing yet another co-op mission in my wargame.
The goal here is to cover for when a player of a team is gone.

1. The player has the ability to come back into the game. It costs either time, resources or help from the other members.
2. The other players can choose to wait or continue.
3. The game is beatable with only 1 player. More makes the mission easier.
4. The game only ends when all players have lost.
5. If the team decides to not wait, but continue instead. It is their choice for failing the mission. Not the player who lost first. You need to take notice and adept. Patience is virtue.

I don't think you play many co-op games....

Just because you beat one villain in Sentinels of the Multiverse with a specific group of heroes doesn't mean you can't play again to try to beat the other 10+ villains with the other 20+ heroes.

Every co-op I've ever played has variability. Multiple player characters, multiple scenarios, etc.