Results 1 to 10 of 28

Threaded View

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by No One of Consequence View Post
    If you're not interested in kingdom management, there is an "automatic" setting (not sure of the name) that does everything in your stead, and cannot destroy your kingdom, unless you don't do each chapter's quest and thus let your kingdom destroy itself due to utter negligence on your part.

    Bluefrenzy, I don't understand your post. Could you explain what you mean, please ?
    Sure, I split it in two parts.

    First it's about how bad it looks to have to tell the players what is the critical solution to a game problem. That fact should rise several alarms:
    1- There is a need to explain the players what is the best stategy to deal with the problem, probably because else, you fail. That's a problem of user experience in terms of communication or directly a gameplay problem.
    2- There is an obvious critical path, which means the gameplay is not giving choice but to deal with the issues as scripted.
    3- As a direct consequence, player agency is removed. I am not going to enter in game design jargon, but player agency is extremely important in any game, even more in role playing games.

    On the second paragraph I am making reference to the player distribution according to the odds of having bad luck with the dice. The positive feedback loop implies that after certain number of bad rolls you are spiraling down faster and faster because of how the mechanics feedback the failures. This implies there is a point where the chances of recovering from a bad stroke are negligible.
    So basically you can distribute all the player base according to the sucesses - failures. Basically there would be a gauss bell describing all the player's results. Since this is due to luck it will be normal to have the median of users in a certain ratio of successes and failures, but it also means there is a group of players in the above median part and another group under the median.
    So, now we have the rules that feedbacks the iterations making it harder as the ratio decreases. There is a point where the benefits of winning and the punishment of failing balances out, but if you drop under this point it means recovery is going to take a series of good luck strokes to recover. Since the game feedbacks bad results it means as you get further away from that balance point the probabilities of failing in cascade increase exponentially. So basically, at any point in that gauss bell you can describe the probabilities of recovering or the inverse, failing.

    The "only" thing you have to do is cross both graphs and you will end up with a percentage of players who will fail certainly due to bad luck. Multiply then for the number of players and you know the number of affected people for a bad luck. And my guess without making all those complex calculations due to my experience playing the game is that this percentage is large enough to be a real problem for a big quantity of players. Even if it's a 10% of the player base, over 100.000 people means there is more than 10.000 players doomed due to bad luck. I mean, what are the odds of failing your first 10 times in a row in a 50% chance game? Well, yeah, it's one in 1000. But when you have 100.000 players rolling 1000 times it means 10.000 players failed 10 times in a row. The same statistic says that at least 1 player got 16 failures in a row. And the game system doesn't handle those situations.

    This issue does not matter for short games like in poker or, in this game itself, the individual combats. If you fail, you try again. But I don't think it's very welcome in 100 hour games. Everything listed in the OP sounds more like a patch over patch trying to deal with this reality.

    And, following the mantra of "sticking to the pnp game", the job of the DM usually goes the other way around: the DM creates negative feedback loops (the more you get, the harder is to keep getting). When a DM "adjusts" the game on real time is most of the times creating a negative feedback loop. The more powerful the characters get, the harder the challenge. The more crippled the party is, the more stupid the enemies are. Because what matters in role playing games is player agency. What matters is the choices of the players and how those affects the outcomes. I think the kingdom management system doesn't translate very well to the computer.
    Last edited by; 01-02-2019 at 09:31 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts