Chance and Skill
Ah, mortals, it's been too long!
I think.
Actually, you probably didn't miss me too much; I didn't miss you at all.
Well, I'm contacting you today to tell you about the reading I performed this week. I read chapters five and six from Challenges for Game Designers by Brenda Brathwaite and Ian Schreiber, which cover the use of chance and skill in games from a design standpoint.
Chance first, if that's OK with you. I don't really care if it's OK with you, it's the order that my notes are in, and that's the order I'm going to address them in this post.
"Why is chance an important component in games, and what tools does the designer have at their disposal to deploy this element?"
(I should not that chance is not an overlly important component in games; many games have gotten on just fine without it. Chess, for example.)
In games which are based purely on skill, rather than chance, allow the stronger player to win everytime the game is played; if you're better than your opponent at Chess, you'll beat them nine times out of ten (unless you let them win, which I applaud you for doing; on the other hand, where is your
With chance in a game, the uncertainty of the outcome is increased, and the game becomes more dramatic as a result. The game also becomes difficult or impossible to solve (Noughts and Crosses is an example of a game which has been solved; with two players who know how to solve it, the game becomes a draw every time), and has increased variety, making it more interesting to play again and again.
Chance can be mechanically implemented in one of two ways, I think; as with the dramatic tension (I'll post the blog on this tonight or tomorrow, if I remember), one can use either force or illusion:
- Force: the chance factor actively changes the state of the game, such as when dice rolls decide the number of moves a player can make.
- Illusion: doesn't directly affect the game state, but changes what the player can percieve, such as a fog of war mechanic, or being unable to see your opponent's cards.
"Why is skill an important component in games, and what tools does the designer have at their disposal to deploy this element?"
(Again, skill isn't absolutely necessary, but it is perhaps a little more important to have than chance; Chess is a better game than Snakes and Ladders.)
When a game is based purely on chance, there is actually very little user-input at all. What decisions does one make when playing Snakes and Ladders, or Roullette (without the gambling part), or any other game where the outcome is decided randomly? As a result of not affecting the outcome, the victory of such a game is less fullfilling than when one has earned their victory through skill. I feel great when I win at Chess; I feel less great when I win at chance-based games. Chance games also lack the pleasure of learning and mastering patterns found in skill games.
Implementing skill into a game is fairly easy in some cases; skill can be broken down to decision-making, meaning that all a designer has to do is give the player opportunities to make decisions. The requirements of these decisions are that the decision musn't be:
- Obvious: if every player would make the same choice every time, under every reasonable circumstance, then it shouldn't be a choice; it should happen anyway.
- Meaningless: the choice has to change something in the game state, otherwise, the choice doesn't have any meaning, or therefore need to be present.
- Blind: give players enough information to know what they're choosing and what some of the consequences might be; don't punish or reward them for not knowing any better.
That's it for now, mortals. I'll maybe post the dramatic tension notes tomorrow.
Praise the Emperor!
No comments:
Post a Comment