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.