Not all digital games have a huge decision space. Choice-based I-F is an obvious example (most of those anyway).
I do not see why a random decision would be any worse for the designer than a non-random decision. Sure, there are games that limit the branching of the story by abruptly cutting off branches where the player makes decisions that would lead too far away from the main branch, but there are also games that try very hard to not do that, and the various tricks used for that should work fine also for keeping branches from random events in check?
You can of course also satisfy “Don’t have players make rolls if the result is not important to the story, or if failure will stop the momentum of the story” by having fewer random decisions. If only one outcome of a random event is good for the story then just remove all the other outcomes and make it non-random? Sounds easy?
@Randozart Many years ago we made a top down LOTR game prototype for a client. Unofficial of course. I think it was for an early 2000s HP palm pilot type thing. Using Flash. RIP Flash.
Anywho, there was a game mechanic included where Frodo had to beat a goblin at a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors to get past the goblin to continue. Best of three. It was super fun and people enjoyed it.
The good thing about RPS is that it IS visual. You can do things like animate hands during the play state. That’s kinda cool.
Anyway. Thanks again for this post. You didnt JUST hurt my brain. You reminded me of that and I intend to plan a dice roll feature into StoryMate as a result.
And because of this thread I spent 30 mins this morning making this experiment. It’s based on a photo my boy. Of course it’d be nicer with animation etc and of course the list of things you could do just goes on and on. Stay tuned for a more advanced one in the not too distant future
I guess that is a question that goes a little deeper, why have random rolls in the first place? Which, honestly, is an interesting question which I’m going to have to take some time to think about further. Though, since I’m trying to invoke a very tabletop-esque aesthetic, the answer to “should I use dice rolls” is yes, and I would be justifying why after the fact.
Still, interesting question. For tabletop games there could be multiple reasons. For one, it takes away some of the responsibility for crafting the narrative, but also lightens the load on the players and GM in their decision-making, both in the narrative and gameplay. However, since the narrative is already predetermined in video games, the role of narrative steering falls away.
So maybe dice rolls are less interesting player-side, and more interesting game/narrative-side. I.e. the dice roll, deck draw or something like that determines the options available in the first place. Of course, this assumes an implicit different role to the dice: as an arbiter of situations. Setting up things in such a way to challenge characters in unpredictable ways, taking away the possibility of brute forcing a narrative by picking the ‘right’ options.
Still, this is interesting and I need some more time to consider this fully.
It is a good question to think about! Loose Ends is trying to emulate a specific (dice-using) tabletop game mechanically, but the IF version doesn’t use any random chance of success—your stats determine what options are available to you, and whether each option succeeds or fails, with no dice involved.
Remember that most people only play any given game once. Which means any die roll that only appears once in a playthrough, is effectively experienced as either a 100% chance or a 0% chance. (But of course, something like a roguelike might involve dozens of combat rolls, at which point players will actually experience the probabilities involved.)
I played this for a moment, and I love you took the time to assemble this in a morning! It actually also reminded me of a RPS mechanic in Divinity: Original Sin. At the time I played it, I didn’t like it that much, but I realised just now (after losing several times, and then finally winning) a mechanic like this isn’t actually bad, so long as the consequence of losing isn’t too great. In fact, it works fantastically as a push-your-luck type mechanic where you’re trying to get the most out of a situation, but need to choose when to quit, or a sort of ‘punishment gate’ where the consequence for losing is minor, but you you can slowly accrue something like wounds this way.
You know, I’ve been thinking of this exact question a lot over the past week, and it feels good to see it validated somehow. I wonder, how much a narrative really is worth diverging based on this, and consequently, what the best spots are to involve randomisation and dice rolls. For my purposes at least, I then have to wonder, is this roll aiding, or obstructing roleplay?
Exactly; that’s why we decided in Loose Ends not to include randomness. It means a bunch of additional writing, and it doesn’t necessarily help the player’s experience at all.
But also, Loose Ends is a game where you don’t repeat scenes in general, so you really do only see most choices once. A different game structure might be different about that.
For the next example that comes to mind, I think I would have enjoyed The Killings in Wasacona just as much if not more if the dice rolls had been replaced with straight checks against the relevant skill. As-is, getting the best ending involves a lot of grinding to increase your chances of succeeding at a few critical checks (there’s a repeatable scene that has a very low chance of unlocking another scene that boosts all your rolls, for example), and even then it’s not guaranteed. Because one rule of this game is that you never get to repeat a check.
So, I wanted to come back to the comment about playing a game only once. As I mentioned, I’m one of those players. In recent memory, the only story heavy games that got multiple plays out of me were Fallout 4 and Baldur’s Gate 3.
However, I’m the type of person to sink hundreds (I’m afraid to say, maybe even thousands) of hours into Crusader Kings 2 and Dwarf Fortress adventure mode. I admit neither of them have stellar narratives, and are very crunchy, mechanical simulations.
However, I think what is does most effectively is provide different game states. You’ll be hard pressed to ever be in the same situation twice. That would be game-state randomisation.
I know games like Long Live the King (that card game) use an event deck which you shuffle through to accomplish this, but it still has a few built in game paths which essentially distract from roleplay.
Similarly providing options locked behind obvious skill/ability gates makes it very tempting to pick that option, despite what you’re attempting to roleplay. But maybe randomisation isn’t necessarily the solution here.
However, I must admit I haven’t not been enjoying failing dice rolls in the demo for Esoteric Ebb, so that one is probably doing something right
Complete Sidebar:
Just to put this down somewhere: Maybe the “skill gate problem” could be circumvented by detaching the having of a trait from the availability of an option. So, in order to pick the option, you first need to use a skill which provides the narrative currency needed for that option, but costs another currency or has an obvious up front downside. So, you’re really picking the option for itself and the narrative implications rather than the expectation that it’s “probably better”.
In a boardgame, dice rolls are very engaging for the player. The risk/reward is exciting. When you say, “I’m trying to invoke a very tabletop-esque aesthetic,” I think you should just go whole hog. Show the dice rolling on the player’s screen. It’s like a slot machine, effectively. (Even have the tumbling sound vary with each roll.)
…it takes away some of the responsibility for crafting the narrative, but also lightens the load on the players and GM in their decision-making…
I really dig boardgames that have encounter scenario cards drawn from a shuffled deck. The game never plays exactly the same way twice and the cards alleviate GM duties. Some boardgames do this so well, that I play them as single-player games. Some games, change the scenario difficulty by using multiple decks. Which leads me to…
So, I wanted to come back to the comment about playing a game only once.
…replayability. If a game is meant to be short, having a different series of challenges each time encourages replay (especially if you can beat your previous score/achievements – see Seedship). If it’s exhaustive with scenarios in a single play-through, it encourages longevity of gameplay (due to new things being introduced. At least, that’s how I see things.
Note: I believe Seedship was made with Twine using the SugarCube story format.
Alright, downloaded for research purposes. Will report back once a mission has gone awry. Perhaps multiple times.
I realised something about this. In some way, dice rolls in tabletop RPGs also serve a different purpose. They are, in some way, an arbiter of challenge. So, given you have a weak character for example, one who lacks any visible trace of muscles, who now needs to open a door which is jammed.
You could gate a strength challenge behind a particular number. But, you could also let them have a shot, and create the experience of the character “trying to meet the challenge”. Though admittedly, in a cRPG, this could likewise be represented with an option to try and open the door, and having a hidden skill check behind this. Or, if they have a strength score between two numbers, needing to spend a particular meta-currency like effort, or be given a particular penalty for breaking through the door because they weren’t quite strong enough, incurring strain.
What I’m starting to think is somewhat inspired by playing Fallen London a lot. Either the gate is clear-cut. You need X to pass. The gate could be based in a roll of the dice, and would be repeatable, but each time you try and fail, you incur some form of strain. Or, the choice is fully set up to be roleplay based and puts the narrative agency in the hands of the player. Asking them not whether they fail or succeed, but how they fail, suceed or move forward.
Each gate or decision point would have their place, but perhaps, in the interest of roleplay, only the last option truly matters in shaping your character. Conferring no real mechanical benefit, but instead shaping the narrative and the world surrounding them.
The other two would exist to at least create some idea of challenge in the world. Especially, perhaps, if you involve a timer of some sorts, or a limited resource pool for actions. Just my musings.
Also, I have thought about this a lot. I feel that dressing up a digital RPG with the aesthetic of a tabletop one might actually work to convey the feeling of a TTRPG more effectively by priming the player to think of it as such.
