On dice and modifiers

[Nom]

One comment about hiding mechanics:

One thing that irritates me no end in games is a situation where I feel that the computer has access to statistical or other information that it hides from me. Or a variety of options are presented without actually explaining what they do in clear mechanics.

This particularly becomes an issue when it comes to comparing things.

"This item increases your damage in combat".
"This item makes you hit harder in combat."

Ok. So just how do you expect me to compare these items? You've told me that I have a meaningful choice and then given me no information to make it with. That as a player really irks me.

Subjective descriptions are fine, though. I don't need numbers, just some way (that I trust) to make the judgement.

[Fyth]

Hmm... I can understand that feeling very well. Generally this is especially troublesome when items say approximately the same thing but can't be compared.

For example, using your combat example, these descriptions are clearly describing different effects.[list=1] causes more damage more easily penetrates armor[/list=1] When comparing these two items, you can make a choice depending on the situation. This assumes the game mechanics tell you why your attack isn't working well ("your sword bounces off their armor").

However, if two different items both said that they 'cause more damage', you'd want some way to compare the two. In real life you can't really tell the difference. Admittedly, you can use common sense, or you can try to find out by reading or through experimentation. However, common sense is sometimes wrong, experts often disagree, and even the best experiments can't truly simulate the real-life situation.

This sort of design is my choice in design for OrphanCrown. As a role-playing game, I really want to emphasize the "choosing what fits you" and "using your common sense" over "calculating the odds." It will be clear that using certain items will help with skills. However, the differences between the items will be up to the player to decide. For instance, using the combat example again, it would be fairly clear that wearing armor protects your character from harm. However which armor is best? Is chainmail better than thick cloth? Is scale better than chain? Maybe, maybe not. In both cases, it depends on the situation. Though... chain is much more expensive to produce than scale... surely it has its advantages?

Err... I seem to be talking about combat a lot, which is not meant to figure heavily into OrphanCrown. As an alternate example, if you were a cook in OrphanCrown, it would be clear that skill, experience, a good recipe, good ingredients, and cooking implements are all fairly important. However, which of these is more important? I don't plan to simulate all of those factors, but some of them will definitely make an appearance.

All right, so I'm guessing my answer will probably irk you. As a redeeming caveat, one important philosophy in design is to make sure that there is no best choice. Especially in combat. This makes for good game design, but also realism. If there was one best weapon, why would there be so many that were used throughout the world? Historically, elite fighting forces carried several different weapons to better deal with different situations. However, in each country, a different set of weapons achieved the same goal.

[Nom]

I suppose it depends on your game. Perhaps the best way to express the "complaint" is "would someone who knew the mathematics of how the engine worked have an advantage over someone who didn't?" If the answer to this is "yes", then you really need to think long and hard about the fairness effects of your obscurity.

A decision where the game deliberately obfuscates information is only meaningful if foiling that obfuscation is the game. Otherwise it's simply a means of compensating for poorly balanced mechanics by taking control away from the players.

Obscurity in game mechanics is no more a virtue than it is in security.


That said, personal preference is fine. Even using subjective descriptions is fine. But make sure that your subjective descriptions accurately allow comparisons of items (or whatever). If your sword and your club are both described as "this is a weapon, you can hit things with it" then they better be interchangeable without changing the mechanics. Otherwise you are being dishonest with your players. Likewise, if your magic robe gives 'protection superior to even the heaviest armor' then make sure the players trust that you are telling the truth. Otherwise you are suggesting that players are making meaningful decisions but not giving them a basis to make that decision.

This doesn't just apply to weapons, but it's as good an example as any.

[Quigg]

From the article:
In any case, in both examples, I'm trying to avoid the actual formula that will be used. My thought is that players would rather not have to deal with the calculation themselves, and would prefer it if the workings are kept somewhat hidden. I certainly wouldn't want the game to devolve to the point where a player can calculate their exact odds of succeeding at a certain action. In my mind, half the fun is learning from experience where your character can excel (or fail).

I would suggest providing some example formulae, with variables unspecified for your actual game situation. This gives players an opportunity to have a better "sense" of how things work. If the formula is xDy + z ( roll x y-sided dice and add linear adjustment z), that can be communicated without giving away exactly what x, y, and z are for a given situation.

I think the error designers sometimes make is assuming that the mechanic will be fairly obvious to players over a small number of samples. In fact, a hidden mechanic, even a very simple one, can remain quite mysterious almost indefinitely.

If there is a high degree of randomness in the mechanic, a larger number of samples are needed for a player to see it's statistical shape. Likewise, a mechanic which depends on a greater number of variables will require more samples.

A reasonable degree of opacity can be maintained by not revealing the exact relationship between variables (e.g. weapon type, action choice, position) and the factors in the mechanic calculation (x, y, z). But general relationships of these variables to factors, and generic versions of the mechanics formula used are, in my view, good to provide. Whether to provide an exact formula, or a textual description is up to the designer.

As a player, I would wish for a game that is still interesting/challenging in terms of decision making even if I know or derive the exact mechanic.

- Quigg

[Holliday]

Both of your comments are correct and often this is sadly absent from many of the games that I have played in the past. My one point of difference is that I am not building a game of the same sort. Statistics and numbers are practically required for a fighting game or a game where you go kill monsters repeatedly. OrphanCrown's emphasis is on role-playing. The second I introduce obvious numbers and statistics into the game, it loses a great deal of its natural feeling.

As an example from table-top, if you don't know your own stats, then it isn't easy to break into OOC with another player to ask "are you stronger than me?" Instead, you role-play it and find out that time. I've seen role-play heavy online games use the same tactic to great success. You might reach the wrong conclusion, but that happens in the real-world too...

So for instance, in OrphanCrown my plan is to provide almost no information. Using the combat example, if you examine a rapier, you will get a description of the rapier. If you examine a warhammer, you will get a description of the warhammer. No stats. It's up to the player to decide which would look better or fit their character more. The goal is to let people role-play whatever they like without worrying about penalties.

Will there be a difference? Yes. Weapons theory will tell you that a warhammer is better at piercing armor, but not as easy to use effectively. Will there be a big difference? Not really. If someone decided that they looked better with a rapier, then they should use one. There will be some situations where they are disadvantaged, but there will be others where they have the advantage. Would knowledge of the mechanics allow someone to make a better choice? No. All choices have advantages and disadvantages.

Back when I was discussing balance, this was one of my main points. Each path should be equally valid. In design, I would want each weapon to be approximately equal overall. If a certain weapon is better in one situation, then it should be worse in another. A player can then be satisfied with whatever choice they make for their character.