[MUD-Dev2] Risk vs Reward [was: Value]

[Sean Howard]

"Mike Rozak" <Mike at mxac.com.au> wrote:
> 1) I hadn't read much about choices other than from Chris Crawford's
> books, which don't mention strong/weak. I suppose I missed a few books
> someplace.

It's so weird. After writing that email, I couldn't for the life of me
remember where I heard weak and strong choices from. So I went to google
and couldn't find anything except your article :)

I still have no idea where I got it from, but I'm positive I heard it from
someone other than the voices in my head. Of course, it's possible that I
may have confused strong and weak something else. I'll have to skim
through my books and see which one it was, though I'm leaning towards the
books on game theory.

> 2) The reason why I use my distinction for strong/weak is because it
> explains the "string of pearls" adventure game design. Moving around
> within a pearl is weak. Moving to a new pearl is strong because, as a
> general rule, you can't go back.

I'd never heard that before. That's an interesting way of looking at it.
But wouldn't that only apply to linear games, or at least branching games
with linear paths. Something like GTA3 could be described as pearls with
side quests, but Oblivion or some of the more sandboxy MMORPGs don't often
have distinct delineations between progress markers.

> 3) I wrote up more ramblings about choices on
> http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/Choices3.htm. The doc covers your points about
> cosmetic choices, etc. I don't think I applied a specific label to those
> sorts of choices... which doesn't matter because I don't really care
> about labels. "A rose by any other name is still a cumquat."

I read through it, and while I think it is pretty on the mark, I'd be
careful about some of your assumptions. Just one example is that you say a
game with only easily reversible choices is boring. I'm not sure that's
entirely true, though I admit that it may depend on the gamer. My dad, for
instance, loved walking around the world of Myst even though he couldn't
actually solve any of the puzzles. He just liked to explore. I think if
faced with two identical doors, yeah, it's not an interesting choice...
but if you have the power to return and see what's behind the other door,
it's not really choosing "A over B" but "A before B". When you think about
it, this is a very common choice in dungeon crawls, adventure games, and
RPGs. I don't know if the choice itself is that interesting or meaningful,
but I'd still rather have it over one long hallway with no doors.

I used to hold that games were nothing more than a series of "designed
decisions", with an emphasis on decisions. However, in my old age, I've
come to favor the "designed" aspect more. The decisions may or may not be
important or meaningful, but they are at least designed such that they
aren't completely unimportant or completely meaningless. In other words,
the quality of decision is perhaps less important than the quality of
context the decision is made in.

Obviously, this isn't always right, as some genres are very dependant on
their decision making. For example, a tactical game lives and dies by it's
"depth". A racing game has a far greater responsibility to the tactile
senses and feeling fast and furious than to depth. But an RPG or adventure
game both depend more on media to convey characters and worlds than
decision.

That being said, I do think your list provides some excellent guidelines
that offers actual insight, inspiration, and consideration to something
not a lot of game designers give two farts on. I think every single rule
on there can and should be broken by capable designers - but that's what
makes a capable designer: the ability to break the rules on purpose and be
better off for it. I'm glad you wrote that because being able to figure
out who is breaking the rules in a good way and in a bad way is kind of
dependant on knowing that rules are actually being broken. :)

-- 
Sean Howard