You cannot possible know what another person will do; what choices they make in a game. This is a factor of uncertainty that exists, to some degree, in all multi-player games. From chess to Pandemic, the other players are an unknown, uncontrollable factor in your gaming experience. You can guess, and indeed the better you predict what others do the more likely it is you'll succeed in your goals, but even the most predictable player can sometimes surprise you. This is something that few AI systems accomplish with any degree of depth (as of this writing... the future is soon!), making human players an ultimate source of uncertainty.
In tabletop RPGs, other players bring the world around your character to life. Everyone from the GM to the most shy PC participate in building a setting and a story that would not be possible without the imagination of everyone at the table. There's no replacement (again... yet) for this level of uncertainty. That's not to say that you can't run a solo RPG and not have fun, but there's definitely something missing there, yeah?
Player uncertainty is often what makes a game's core tick, and tabletop RPGs are no exception. While it doesn't have as big of an impact on how the players interact with the mechanics of the game, it provides dimensional doors to all of the other uncertainties that we will explore in this series.
---
A mysterious side note: Co-op board games fall a little short in this category, and this is likely the reason that I find most of them a little dull. Often, player interaction and uncertainty is negated by "the puzzle" being solvable in terms of there being a "best move". This is why "quarterbacking" is such a huge problem - most co-op board games are a glorified solo game. RPGs, on the other hand, are much better set up to have each player making unique choices.
I always think of comments like "Co-op board games fall a little short..." is a naive generalization. The problem is that because co-op games are still somewhat novel, we compare each popular game against the best competitive games. In a group of non-gamers, if someone said "Board games are boring and tedious - just look at Monopoly, Risk and Chess," we would balk, yet statements like yours do the same thing.
ReplyDeletePlayer uncertainty is lost when a game doesn't offer variety in gameplay and strategy. For instance, I agree that Pandemic and Forbidden Island require the players to use the same strategy to have a decent chance of winning - they are more like puzzles than games. However, as innovative as they were, they represent co-op games in their infancy. Limited player options for success are not limited to them. If I had written the side note, I would have mentioned Axis and Allies, Monopoly, Risk, Hearts, Euchre, and a host of other mediocre games which have few real options for players, and note that this is why I find them dull.
On the other hand, Defenders of the Realm, Forbidden Dessert and Shadows over Camelot have many different options for each player which ultimately can lead to success. I suspect there are even more coop games that I haven't played that are great in terms of player options. In those cases, quarterbacking is discouraged as either badgering or only used for advice, which is only needed for novices (and is needed for novices in any game, co-op or competitive).
If one is playing a mediocre co-op game with players who don't know "the puzzle," I consider quarterbacking akin to someone playing cutthroat against players who are relatively new in a competitive game. Yes, it's more likely for "that guy" to win, but they don't get invited back. For players with more experience who want the coop experience (or to play more cutthroat), choose a better game - it shouldn't be too hard to convince the rest of the group.
Ok, off the soapbox - I do like this article, and your uncertainty series overall. It's a great way of looking at the different facets of games in an academic sense to say why these are bad and those are good.
You're right. I was making a side comment and a major generalization. I could write a whole blog post on just that topic to explore what I find wrong in "most" co-ops that I know of or have tried. There are a handful I like, so I know it's possible, and I'm sure we'll see more successful ones in the future.
ReplyDeleteOver-generalization? Maybe. But naive? I don't think so. Co-op games are old enough now and there's enough of them out there that some people _only_ play those games. So when I talk about them as a generalization, I'm not missing some core experience or understanding of the genre.
To summarize what I really was trying to say: co-op games _generally_ have _more_ solver's uncertainty and less _player_ uncertainty, and that's why _I_ find them less appealing.