Patreon

Monday, August 8, 2016

David and Goliath
I was working on Parliament on my last sleepless night (the only time I get the best stuff out from myself for Parliament). I have come to the realization that downtime is a necessary part of the growth into the higher echelons of power. So, I was trying to solve the problem of voluntary downtime in a competitive game.

The idea I had been bandying around was that, players could get GM actions (like increasing challenges or activating Retribution mechanics) while in downtime against active players. The action economy would be consistent, so as more players entered downtime there would be more “GM actions” and less active players to target. Not a terrible rule, needs development but it could work.

The issue actually comes in after that mechanic transpires. Because it can force the “trailing” player(s) into downtime at a sub-optimal time, it can create a substantial power gap. Which, while a desirable outcome, leaves the trailing player at a disadvantage that they need to rectify before they’re steamrolled.

So now my challenge is: How to create a set of “David VS Goliath” mechanics, where a weaker foe can overcome a stronger one.

There are a few important points to consider, and I’m surely missing some:

1. More power is granted from smart play and taking risks. It is a reward. If the rules over-balance in favor of weaker players, it becomes foolish to pursue power because it is actually a disadvantage. It then mutates into a punishment for power: not a desirable outcome.

2. Rewarding one player is indistinguishable from punishing every other player in a zero-sum game.

3. Setting the terms of engagement is the strategy used to win a game. There are valid arguments for either stronger or weaker to set these terms (power VS flexibility), but granting it to either is the pivot-point of balance.

4. The stronger player has a safety net for failure, so that they can afford to lose. The weaker player does not. Their failures and successes are matters of life and death.
5. Players will get frustrated if being weaker is impossible to recover from. The David VS Goliath mechanics are a necessary part of design.

6. It should be possible to, through clever play, go from a weaker position to a stronger one.

And all of these points can’t get in each other’s way. If I over-emphasize point 6, I endanger point 1, etc. Thankfully, they don’t all have such a contrary relationship. There is a fair synergy to them.

What I’m thinking of is allowing point 3 (the setting of terms) to balance point 4 (the safety net). If I make challenging the stronger player a bigger risk for the weaker and grant them higher rewards for success, I don’t take enough away in loss from the stronger player to invalidate their position, but I give enough to the weaker to eventually catch up.

Of course that’s going to need some more specificity and development, but you know, it’s not a bad starting point…

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.