When I get a note from a developer saying essentially "this dynamic creates loss aversion" (fancy-speak for "losing this action/resource/turn feels bad)
My first reaction is not "how do we fix the feel bad"
It's "Is it actually necessary to remove loss aversion in this instance?"
My first reaction is not "how do we fix the feel bad"
It's "Is it actually necessary to remove loss aversion in this instance?"
Comments
Adding complexity and cruft to mitigate "feel bad" moments that themselves are just dogmatically accepted as "must avoid"
Most of the best, most enduring games have "feel bad" moments
It's a feature, not a bug
Descent 2e didn't want to take characters out, so made it easy to revive them. Leading to every map being some type of gimmicky, stressful time trial.
Failing is a big part what makes those games sing, increasing tension and sweetening victory.
Stubbing your toe isn’t equal to cutting off your foot.
For what it’s worth, a lot of the meanest old school euros let you walk straight into the meat grinder.
I suppose you can say “this game is highly competitive?”
Joke apart, I have found myself wondering about what actually make a rulebook a good rulebook lately. It can't only be about clear ruleset phrasing, right?
1) length doesn’t matter. Obsessing over page count rather than clarity is a fool’s errand.
2) context matters. When we think about games we think about mechanics, but when we discuss games we talk about theme. Context is the bridge to understanding. (Cont)