Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5613425" data-attributes="member: 70709"><Casts Counterspell>Phew, for a second there you had me worried that a game couldn't gain insights from another game without being purified or corrupted (whichever you prefer) by it.  Dungeonmagic and Dominionquest, and all that.Personally, I'm mostly a Johnny/Spike mix when the rules permit sufficient complexity, albeit constrained by my vision of the character.Instead of designing a game to be for all 3 types of players, consider designing a game that is "against" the problematic incarnations, mechanically speaking, of these types.  Problem players exist, and to some extent everyone is one.  A good game should be difficult to ruin just by playing to type within the rules.  Don't be a dick is a fantastic rule, but good mechanics don't rely on it overmuch.  A dick can always find a way to ruin a game, but that doesn't mean we should be providing opportunities.The Spike is most a problem when he gets to mash the "I win" button much more frequently than other players.  Some groups won't mind, but then again those aren't the ones that need help.  The objective frequency with which that button is mashed will depend a great deal on genre and other considerations, but in general I think D&D has worked best when it is an occasional occurrence.  This player requires the game have some semblance of balance in its mechanical portions.  In D&D there is typically some assumption about the abilities of the average player, but much less about what the permissible variances from these averages are.  The Spike always moves to the edge, and therefore pushes the mean.  A game that can handle a Spike puts some constraints on what the Spike can accomplish, and this should probably be considered just as important a part of the math of a game as analysis of its averages.The Johnny is a problem player when his mechanically complex (if conceptually elegant) solutions leads to the "I win" button or dramatically slows down play.  Many Johnnys will find the "I win" button boring and won't press it, but those who don't are probably the most dangerous Spikes.  Complex game systems (for various values of "complexity") are the only ones a Johnny is likely to want to play, and also the ones most at risk from falling apart under the accumulated stresses of its various bits.  Generous stacking rules and anything that permits trading power in one area to gain it in another are the usual suspects.  Combating this means aggressive cost/benefit analysis, a detailed look at opportunity cost from the perspective of a player that wants to maximize power, and a willingness to avoid power creep.  It is here that something can be learned from magic, and really all of game theory.The second problematic aspect of Johnny is that he is most likely to pursue complex interactions, find corner cases, and generally pursue options which will slow down play.  Solutions include a universal resolution mechanic, a fast resolution mechanic, restrained use of situational modifiers, numerical interactions with other players/characters that rely only on universally defined quantities (e.g. armor class), simple stacking rules, spreading the burden of especially complex interactions over multiple turns, siloing decisions into a deep stack with relatively few choices at each level, and limited need to share/obtain information with/from other players until resolution.  This isn't even close to a complete list, but I think the main point is that all of the above don't necessarily remove interaction, they attempt to streamline it.The problematic aspect of the Timmy is usually when the cool dramatic thing actually sucks. (Admittedly, this is less likely to instantly ruin the game for everyone else, even if Timmy isn't having fun, so maybe this discussion will be "for" the Timmy rather than "against" him.)  If the system balance is tight enough than it will never particularly suck, but it might also not feel particularly dramatic.  In addition, mechanical balance usually doesn't include the impact of drama in its calculations, since by definition it can't be known until it's happening.  This is where actions points, hero points, FATE aspects, and other mechanics that are potentially "drama aware" should serve the game.  I especially like systems where dramatic action mechanics raises the stakes (sometimes literally), and generally lets Timmy be a special flower, just not every turn.  I think these options help the Spike and Johnny as well, because their optimizations or elegant combinations can be altered each round in keeping with the action in the game's narrative while also tickling the urge to optimize or be mechanically creative.Everything above is my initial opinion, not a thoroughly considered one.  However, I feel pretty strongly that the best games in the D&D mold are those resilient to the Spike/Johnny combo while still giving them a fertile playground.  When MtG can help navigate those waters, I'm more than happy to listen.</blockquote>

Verification