Unwinnable states

[tggdan3]

One thing to think about is why the player is being ridiculous. Often it’s because they have no idea what to do and are trying all sorts of brute force “Try this on that” approaches. My thought is that this is usually a problem with a game rather than the player, so instead of punishing the player you should give them some help.

I would generally agree with this statement. I guess sometimes I do things to test the parser’s limit in games also. Some of the fun I had in zork was trying to get the parser to give me weird results.

And the player free will issue had a good point above where they mention that you need to tell the player what the character would do.

I think a good example here is Suveh Nux. If you try to break an item, the game tells you that you shouldn’t break your masters things. However, there are way with spell combinations to destroy items. Now, you already know that you “shouldn’t” destroy items, but you’re attempting to break them anyway by roundabout ways. In this case, if the player destroys an item that makes the game unwinnable, he should be allowed to. (Though Suveh Nux does indicate that the game has now become unwinnable).

Likewise, Zork’s jewelled egg, indicates that it is fragile and has delicate hinges and latches. You can’t open it because you “lack the tools and expertise”. However, if you break the egg, you can get it open, though the game is unwinnable, because you damage the item inside. Likewise, if you drop the egg from the top of the tree, it breaks.

I would agree that smashing the egg to get at the item inside is a fair way to make the game unwinnable (since it hints in the item description that it should be opened delicately), though I think it’s not as fair to demolish the egg for dropping it on the tree top, when drop is accepted as an alternate verb for “put down”, and you might be thinking that your character will put the egg back in the nest or something.

Meanwhile, Zork II is frequently unwinnable because the wizard can randomly show up and cast spells on you, which can become a problem if he paralyzes you in the balloon, near a bomb, in the bank, makes you clumsy on a ledge, makes you attack a dragon, etc. This is completely random and utterly frustrating. Even with the game solution the randomness can make the game unwinnable on any given playthrough. I would say this should generaly be avoided altogether.

Alternately, Zork III is very cruel in that the Royal Puzzle seems to have a solution, which turns out to be the incorrect one involving a door leading out. You go on thinking you solved this correctly, then figure out (eventually- maybe) that you did something wrong. That one is pretty unfair, since the action implies that you did something correct (and your score increases also).

Personally, I see a difference between the Zork examples and flushing keys down a toilet or attempting to burn your own spellbook. I have a hard time thinking that the player should expect these actions to be constructive.

[Hertz]

There’s really no excuse to create a game with an un-endable state that doesn’t advise the player he’s getting himself into trouble. The author should be aware of all the ways the player can play himself into a corner. I’d say most of the time, unwinnable states are just poor design — a lack of forethought, time, attention span, or budget. Even if the player doesn’t know what unwinnable states there are, the author does.

In business, I’ve always said you can’t train customers to do business your way. The same is true for games; you can’t make players have fun your way. If you’re trying to force a particular path, one arbitrary solution without variation, then maybe you should stick to writing novels.

[tggdan3]

@Hertz

There’s really no excuse to create a game with an un-endable state that doesn’t advise the player he’s getting himself into trouble. The author should be aware of all the ways the player can play himself into a corner. I’d say most of the time, unwinnable states are just poor design — a lack of forethought, time, attention span, or budget. Even if the player doesn’t know what unwinnable states there are, the author does.

In business, I’ve always said you can’t train customers to do business your way. The same is true for games; you can’t make players have fun your way. If you’re trying to force a particular path, one arbitrary solution without variation, then maybe you should stick to writing novels.

This is a good point. I guess it comes down to what is more satisfying for you or the player.

BURN SPELLBOOK
This dangerous act would achieve little.

BURN SPELLBOOK
You set fire to your spellbook and watch the flames eat away your ability to cast spells. I hope you don’t need them!

Also, for me it’s always been kind of precedent. I started with Forbidden Castle and Zork. Forbidden Castle was tough to make unwinnable (though possible), and there were many cheap deaths. Zork had many unwinnable states and cheap deaths, and a lantern that would go out if you took too long. Zork was also mean in that even though you were given extra lives, some versions left the game unwinnable if you died even once.

I guess the format has evolved a lot since I started playing, but in some ways its no different then blocking off the “optimal” ending in some way. No game is un-endable.

Galtea is just a conversation game, but without warning you might talk your way out of a preferred ending by your converstion choices, especially not knowing what you’re “supposed” to ask. So Far won a bunch of awards, and even the author admits in the beginning that you should have multiple save files and it’s easy to make the game unwinnable. I run D&D a lot, and I know players hate when you try to drive them on a specific path, ruining their character’s freedom, and they never seem to blame the DM when a player does something silly like attacking a main NPC, or selling the Artifact of Evil Slaying and now they can’t win. I’m surprised most people don’t SAVE before trying to burn a spellbook or do something silly.

[Eleas (Björn Paulsen)]

@tggdan3

I run D&D a lot, and I know players hate when you try to drive them on a specific path, ruining their character’s freedom, and they never seem to blame the DM when a player does something silly like attacking a main NPC, or selling the Artifact of Evil Slaying and now they can’t win. I’m surprised most people don’t SAVE before trying to burn a spellbook or do something silly.

I can see a distinct difference here - the parser in your typical P&P role playing game is arguably perfect, where even the best IF game is decidedly less so. This matters, because the IF parser is a lot less accomplished at following the intent of the player’s statement.

For instance, say that it’s a Wild West game. You’re an inventor who’s had a bit of bad luck: you’re holding a jar of nitroglycerine just as the villain bursts through the door and fires wildly. The only protection you have is to get down. What do you do?

[code]>drop
(the jar of nitroglycerine)

Bemusedly, you watch the flask fall to the ground. The glass shatters, then the rest of the world. Your legacy becomes a gigantic mushroom cloud. Boy, that was pretty stupid.

*** YOU HAVE DIED ***[/code]

I don’t love it when that happens in any game, and it’s virtually unheard of in tabletop gaming.

[tggdan3]

@Eleas

@tggdan3

I run D&D a lot, and I know players hate when you try to drive them on a specific path, ruining their character’s freedom, and they never seem to blame the DM when a player does something silly like attacking a main NPC, or selling the Artifact of Evil Slaying and now they can’t win. I’m surprised most people don’t SAVE before trying to burn a spellbook or do something silly.

I can see a distinct difference here - the parser in your typical P&P role playing game is arguably perfect, where even the best IF game is decidedly less so. This matters, because the IF parser is a lot less accomplished at following the intent of the player’s statement.

For instance, say that it’s a Wild West game. You’re an inventor who’s had a bit of bad luck: you’re holding a jar of nitroglycerine just as the villain bursts through the door and fires wildly. The only protection you have is to get down. What do you do?

[code]>drop
(the jar of nitroglycerine)

Bemusedly, you watch the flask fall to the ground. The glass shatters, then the rest of the world. Your legacy becomes a gigantic mushroom cloud. Boy, that was pretty stupid.

*** YOU HAVE DIED ***[/code]

I don’t love it when that happens in any game, and it’s virtually unheard of in tabletop gaming.

Well, yes. That’s a big issue with parser “intelligence”, and I would agree- I hate that. Likewise

GET DOWN
You can’t see any down here.

But as far as

THROW NITROGLICERINE OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
You watch as the jar falls out of sight and then watch the explosion as it hits the ground below you.

The 2nd example shows that the player intended to do this, though if he needs the jar later, he is out of luck and the game may be unwinnable.

How do you deal with the unwinnable scenario?

1. Prevent the action

THROW NITRO OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
You might need that later, so you decide against it.

I just have a personal distaste for the parser telling me what I do and don’t WANT to do. If it can’t be done, for example, the door is stuck closed, that’s one thing, but if I am prevented by my own PC, I get annoyed.

2. Allow unwinnable scenario

THROW NITROGLICERINE OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
You watch as the jar falls out of sight and then watch the explosion as it hits the ground below you.

3. Make unwinnable actions immediately end game.

THROW NITROGLICERINE OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
You watch as the jar falls out of sight and then watch the explosion as it hits the ground below you. Unfortunately, you weren’t flying high enough to avoid the explosion yourself.

YOU HAVE DIED

I-0 uses this a lot with getting you busted or sent to the hospital. I don’t mind this one as much, as it allows the action, and as long as the deaths are interesting, it may be worth doing anyway to see the death scene. Still, it can make the game seemed like it’s “too easy to die”.

4. Alert character to unwinnable state

THROW NITROGLICERINE OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
You watch as the jar falls out of sight and then watch the explosion as it hits the ground below you.
[The game has now become unwinnable. You may continue playing or UNDO.]

This is fine, but it almost seems like it is forcing the player to use hints, and it “breaks character” a bit. It may be difficult to program properly as well- if there are 2 ways to solve a puzzle, one which uses nitro and another that uses a gun, you have to make sure to check upon distruction of either to make sure BOTH are gone before displaying the message. In complex games, this might be a difficult situation to foresee.

5. Make no possible unwinnable state

THROW NITROGLICERINE OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
The door to the airplane is closed! You throw the nitro- luckily it doesn’t explode- this time!

This is a difficult illusion to master, depending on the game. Some games this works well with, but in some it could be a nightmare to implement. In this scenario you don’t block the actions, but the actions can’t render the game unwinnable- every NPC is too strong for you to kill, or unreachable, or there are no NPCs, etc.

If there are other options I’m missing, let me know. What would be the best way to prevent an unwinnable scenario?

[Eleas (Björn Paulsen)]

(Quick scribble, as I’m heading out the door)

There’s at least one option, I think - the “do you really want to perform this clearly stupid/suicidal act? (Y/N)” query. I’m uncertain as to whether it’s a good idea, TBH.

[emshort]

@Eleas

(Quick scribble, as I’m heading out the door)

There’s at least one option, I think - the “do you really want to perform this clearly stupid/suicidal act? (Y/N)” query. I’m uncertain as to whether it’s a good idea, TBH.

Alternatively: have some sort of autosave mechanism that saves at the moment you are about to make the game unwinnable, and some kind of marker that indicates when unwinnability has happened. (At least a few games have had a WINNABLE command, allowing the player to check whether it was still possible to get through.)

Probably not a good solution for everything either, but it would help prevent situations where the player ruined a game completely by accident.

[Eleas (Björn Paulsen)]

@emshort

Alternatively: have some sort of autosave mechanism that saves at the moment you are about to make the game unwinnable, and some kind of marker that indicates when unwinnability has happened. (At least a few games have had a WINNABLE command, allowing the player to check whether it was still possible to get through.)

Probably not a good solution for everything either, but it would help prevent situations where the player ruined a game completely by accident.

A notion I’m toying with is similar to that; essentially, it would set up checkpoints to which the player could return. The function could be purely mechanical (a command like any other), or it could be couched in purely in-game terms (“Hey Sarge, remember when we took that left turn?” “Yeah?” “I’m just saying…”)

It would, I guess, depend on the needs of a given game.

[tggdan3]

@emshort

@Eleas

(Quick scribble, as I’m heading out the door)

There’s at least one option, I think - the “do you really want to perform this clearly stupid/suicidal act? (Y/N)” query. I’m uncertain as to whether it’s a good idea, TBH.

Alternatively: have some sort of autosave mechanism that saves at the moment you are about to make the game unwinnable, and some kind of marker that indicates when unwinnability has happened. (At least a few games have had a WINNABLE command, allowing the player to check whether it was still possible to get through.)

Probably not a good solution for everything either, but it would help prevent situations where the player ruined a game completely by accident.

I really like the WINNABLE idea. It would allow the player to do whatever, but, similar to a hint system, allow him to figure out whether or not the game is winnable. Now, depending on the complexity of the game- how to program that…

[Hertz]

@emshort

Alternatively: have some sort of autosave mechanism that saves at the moment you are about to make the game unwinnable, and some kind of marker that indicates when unwinnability has happened. (At least a few games have had a WINNABLE command, allowing the player to check whether it was still possible to get through.)

Steal a mechanism from video games and implement a checkpoint system. The author can choose a number of places in the game where it auto-saves (first time entering the Reactor Control Room, every time before crossing the Rickety Rope Bridge, before attempting the Carnival Ring Toss, after defeating the Troll King in combat). Disable the checkpoint auto-saves after the game becomes unwinnable.

This may be the best of all worlds; the player gets a way to retreat back to a winnable state, whether or not he saved intentionally. It may not be the most recent winnable state, as with UNDO; it doesn’t tell him that he’s done any of the right things, but at least he knows he hasn’t done any of the wrong ones; and he may have to cover some ground again to make up for his error. He can still save manually at any time, but he doesn’t have any guarantee that his choice of save is a winnable state.

[Trumgottist (Rikard Peterson)]

@tggdan3

1. Prevent the action

THROW NITRO OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
You might need that later, so you decide against it.

I just have a personal distaste for the parser telling me what I do and don’t WANT to do. If it can’t be done, for example, the door is stuck closed, that’s one thing, but if I am prevented by my own PC, I get annoyed.

I don’t mind that, but I’ve seen enough people saying the same as you that I realise that it’s worth keeping in mind. I would however really dislike ending up in an unwinnable state, and I don’t like the autosave suggestions either. (I’m not brought up on nasty Infocom games or the like.)

So my suggestion would be to prevent the action, but preferably give a reason for it other than that the PC don’t want to do it. (Being told by an NPC that it’s a bad idea, perhaps.)

[tggdan3]

@Trumgottist

So my suggestion would be to prevent the action, but preferably give a reason for it other than that the PC don’t want to do it. (Being told by an NPC that it’s a bad idea, perhaps.)

What if you forced the player to say the command multiple times?

>THROW NITRO OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
"Hey!" says the pilot, "What do you think you're doing? You'll start an international incident doing that!"

>THROW NITRO OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
Bob taps you on the shoulder. "Are you sure you want to throw that nitro away? How will we get into the bank vault?"

>THROW NITRO OUT AIRPLANE DOOR
Ignoring the advise of the pilot and your trusty servant Bob, you throw the nitroglicerine out the airplane door and delight in the fireshow that follows. 

I guess I could see this- but if there were no NPCs handy, the parser itself would have to fill that roll, and since the parser may very well be the voice of God, it could be considered blocking free will.

>BURN SPELLBOOK
Hmm, burning your spellbook does sound like fun, but then you'd be without spells. You might want to avoid that, you know.

>BURN SPELLBOOK
Ah yes! Caution to the wind, and all that. Well, you burn it. Technically I suppose you're still a wizard, but what kind of a wizard? Perhaps you can make a career in alchemy or something. In any case, I hope you don't find further need for that REZROV spell.

It doesn’t seem as bad- as it allows the player to be distructive if he desires, making the game appear deeper. With NPCs it doesn’t bother me as much, but depending on how personified your parser is, it might not fit the writing style of what you’re doing.