unforum

[thegreatpablo]

Losing in an ARG?

[buff]

Honestly, I would argue that this is only a problem in badly designed games. Compare with Monopoly. In Monopoly, every dollar lost by you, is a dollar gained by someone else. It's a zero-sum game. ARGs, on the other hand, are not. If the players have a mucho importante decision to make - regardless of its in-game explanation - then you, as a designer, has an obligation to make both (or every - it there's more than two) paths equally rewarding in terms of enjoyment, story-arc completion and playability.

There is no such thing as a "Make the right choice, or the game ends" in ARGs (or shouldn't be - either in ARGs or any game!).

I also have very mixed feelings when the word "failure" and "player" is mentioned in the same sentence. I would argue that there is no such thing as a players failure in well-designed games. In the example above - "Cedar Rapids" - perhaps the story was furthered by the main character killing himself in captivity. In either case, it challenged the players - which has to be the point, right?

I do agree with the missing concepts though, but I would rephrase them.

Players become investors in a story, or a game, when they feel that whatever they put into it, adds to the whole experience, and therefor - is returned to them in the form of experiences. Lack of player investment will always be a problem for the PM - but that's not inherent in the game mechanics, it's inherent in bad design!

Risk? What is risk? Risk is the possibility that something you consider "bad" may happen. This possibility can be tweaked either way, and therefor your decisions play into it. BUT! As I said above; having a binary choice where one of the outcomes ends the game is the height (or the bottom) of bad game design! As for the problem of presenting risks to the players they don't like? What does that mean? That the risk doesn't fit into the story? Bad design! That the risk isn't offset by an equal possibility to gain something worthwhile? Bad design! That the risk forces the players to do something they don't enjoy on a meta-level? Bad design!

Reward. People play games because they enjoy them. This means that people get rewarded with things that further the game they obviously enjoy playing. Swag or tangible rewards - I think stuff like that is unnecessary - if people need that kind of encouragement to enjoy the game - then we might call it a day, and start selling toys for McD.

[thegreatpablo]

Oh! All very good points. I was thinking in binary terms, as you noted. I'll need to mull this over and come back to it.

One thing I forgot to convey is that perhaps a lot of these concepts are absent because of mis-set expectations. For instance, as players, we know what a rewarding experience is. Perhaps some PMs have a notion that players would want more of a reward than an exciting gaming experience if they present risk into the game.

I might be in the minority here, but when I was growing up, I played pen and paper D&D. However, I wasn't really feeling challenged or having fun unless there was a very real threat to my character's well being. Having the DM fudge rolls in my favor or manuevering around my characters' death was frustrating to me, and took the fun out of the game. I think for me, this feeling translates into ARGs as well. Depending on the game type, if there's no danger, I don't feel invested enough in the other aspects to really care.

Either way, I'll need to think this over.

[labfly]

there have been many, many ARGs that have used "investment, risk, and reward" (and i would add to that penalties) in their game design. you should cruise the archives and read up on some of the more successful ARGs.

also if you're looking for an example of a game that has a strong example of investment, risk, reward or penalty - i would check out "the carer". i think "the carer" was the game where the players made a choice that ended up being the "wrong" choice and all the characters were killed. (somebody correct me if i'm wrong) in the post game chat the pm revealed that if they had made another choice the game would have continued and the killing wouldn't have happened.

recently we've seen a ton of people who are trying their hand at pm'ing before they're really ready... and therefore we're seeing a lot of games that have either poor design or no design. some are basically rabbit holes that end up imploding or fizzling out before they're even truly a game. it is a trend i hope will pass soon. (my 2 cents)

[vpisteve]

The challenge with risk/reward concepts in an ARG is that basically, you want to design an experience that has a satisfying story arc experience regardless of the story outcome (I'm talking about instances where players truly influence the direction of the game, as opposed to just being given the illusion that they're doing so).

Why? Because players can't replay the game to see the alternate endings. Because they can't see alternate endings, how do they know if their ending was the good one or the bad one?

I mean, it's a tough dilemma when you think about it. When you buy a console game or read a choose your own adventure with multiple endings, part of the fun is replaying the game to get to experience these endings. It adds to the replay value. Conversely, how would you feel if you bought a console game where, if you lose, it's game over? Period. You can't play it again. No respawns. No Save Points. That would really suck, and you'd feel ripped off. There would be content that you bought that you were never able to access. So, replay to your hearts content, and find all the little cool things, easter eggs, alternate endings, etc.

ARGs don't have this benefit, however. Players corporately make decisions, and as things happen just one time, they just have to live with them. They usually never get to see how it would have played out otherwise, unless someone tells them in a Post-game chat or something.

In the example you cited above, I'd disagree to say that killing off the main character at the beginning of the game was a bold move by the PMs. Especially if the design was such that players didn't have a clear call to action as to what they were supposed to be doing. If you leave your players hanging with no resolution, that's just not a very satisfying experience for them, is it? And isn't providing a satisfying experience usually a desirable thing to strive for when designing an ARG? You're asking players to invest their time and trust you when they do, so you'd better deliver a good experience for them.

Frustration at not knowing what to do isn't fun. It's something to design to be avoided as much as possible.

That being said, I strongly don't think there should be an ultimate Lose State for an ARG, because of the lack of replayability as mentioned above. At the same time, I think there can and have been very effective uses of real risk/reward in ARGs, even though yeah, they mostly run on rails, narratively. These can effectively be used in the case of secondary characters that don't have a huge impact on the ultimate story arc. This has indeed happened in games such as Last Call Poker, where players had to get a message to a character as to how to get out of a burning building. There were indeed two endings for him written and recorded. The players ultimately saved him, but there was a chance for his character to die.

These types of side-branches can be very effective and real for the players. There can be real consequences based on player action or inaction (as was the tragic case in one recent, unnamed game). But ultimately, the main story can remain satisfying, with tension, resolution, etc.

As far as the main story, I'd say that the ultimate ending can have multiple versions, for sure. As this happens at the end, it's a lot easier to write as it doesn't have an impact on further content. The Beast had two endings, neither one exactly Win or Lose. The recent Sarah Connor Chronicles had more than one ending, at least as far as I can tell. Players of this ARG ultimately ended up losing, the main characters were all killed, the Terminators won. Was this a satisfactory ending for them? You'll have to ask them, as I didn't play.

I'd say that, in my opinion, letting players of an ARG Lose at various secondary branch arcs mid-game isn't a bad thing. Letting them Lose the Whole Game midway through *is* a bad thing. Risk should only be an illusion in such cases.

In a nutshell, you have instances where players indeed can touch the game, and instances where they have the illusion that they can touch the game. The key is to make it so that they can't tell the difference, necessarily.

Ultimately, make sure that players will have an incredible, fun experience no matter what they "choose."

[konamouse]

Nice to see labfly chime in, but she neglected to toot her own horn.

After Sammeeeees wrapped, she told us in the PM chat that there were three possible endings, depending on what we, the players, ended up doing. So our Peeps could have died.

I'm sure that in Sam II we could have allowed Mr AJ to blow up the world if we weren't so hell bent on defeating him.

And wasn't there a game a couple of years ago where we failed to save Santa Clause?

[Star Spider]

I fully agree with the ideas vpisteve is bringing up. An ARG (IMO) is just like life. Every day we make choices that lead us to various outcomes. We don't have the luxury of going back in time and taking an alternate route to see where we would have ended up if we had gone left instead of right. I think that any good ARG should keep that organic choice pattern in mind when designing player agency within the game environment.

The idea of 'winning and loosing' can be a subjective experience depending on how you view the situation. The game should never (IMO) come to a place were it simply ends because of player action or lack thereof. Each choice should be designed specifically to take the game in a given direction and each path should be plotted accordingly. There is a choice for GM's there too, in terms of whether or not they want to draw the game back to the main spine of the story or diverge completely based on player choice. Either way all of those choices should be made before hand and built into the structure of the game so that the path remains clear and engaging no matter what choice the players make. I think that one of the main problems with many games that lack the clear movement to a meaningful end is simply lack of foresight and planning. There are many ways to build player agency into a game structure without loosing the structure altogether (which is fundamental for a successful game).

As for reward - I think we can take the video game industry as a prime example. Not only do players spend hours, days, weeks and months of their lives engaging in gameplay without tangible reward - they also pay large amounts of money to do so!

I think we can all agree the benefits of game play have nothing to do with the traditional, physical definitions of reward and most players are simply in it for the experience it provides. So hopefully it is a good one

[Euchre]

I think the grand synthesis here is:
It's OK to fail to reach a goal, as long as winning is in having been able to play.

[vpisteve]

[Euchre]

[Silent]

[vpisteve]