Exaggerated Perception of Influence - Revision history

Staffan Björk at 09:10, 21 September 2016

2016-09-21T09:10:20Z

Staffan Björk at 08:33, 3 September 2016

2016-09-03T08:33:38Z

Staffan Björk at 07:34, 13 August 2015

2015-08-13T07:34:48Z

Staffan Björk at 21:11, 8 August 2015

2015-08-08T21:11:26Z

Staffan Björk at 07:52, 8 August 2015

2015-08-08T07:52:15Z

Staffan Björk at 18:47, 3 August 2015

2015-08-03T18:47:21Z

Staffan Björk at 14:05, 6 July 2015

2015-07-06T14:05:19Z

Staffan Björk: /* Potentially Conflicting With */

2015-07-03T09:56:04Z

‎Potentially Conflicting With

Staffan Björk at 09:55, 3 July 2015

2015-07-03T09:55:43Z

Staffan Björk at 17:00, 11 January 2015

2015-01-11T17:00:04Z

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 [[Imperfect Information]],
 [[Luck]],
-[[Maneuevering]],
+[[Maneuvering]],
 [[Mimetic Interfaces]],
 [[New Abilities]],

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Given that players' perceptions of influence in a games is a highly subjective issue, designing for this pattern to occur in games is difficult and many solutions can easily backfire if players realize that a certain pattern is used to try and achieve an erroneous opinion of their own importance. In fact, when players no longer become better at playing a game and fully understand their possibilities of influencing the game, it may be impossible to achieve the pattern for those players. Since one way of no being able to improve in a game is to have fully mastered it, [[Gameplay Mastery]] is typically in conflict with [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. That being said, this pattern can mainly be instantiated in games in two ways. First, through affecting how strongly players can control the gameplay and, second, how many options players have when trying to affect it. These do not have to be strongly related but can of course be combined. In addition to this, players can be given much influence on one level of interaction within the game without being able to change the way the game develops on overall.
-Giving players more control over gameplay is primarily done through [[Facilitating Rewards]] of different sorts. Providing players with [[Abilities]] that at least seem relevant to their goals can provide an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] if the players can misjudge how much influence they actually are given. This can further be promoted through [[Buffs]], [[Increased Abilities]], [[New Abilities]], [[Tools]], or access to [[Controllers]] regardless of how large the gameplay benefit is or if these are [[Temporary Abilities]]; this simply because the mentioned patterns cause a change in the level of influence the players have (this may be especially true in games with [[Red Queen Dilemma]] structures). [[Skills]] are not as effective as the suggestions just given since [[Skills]] often state how likely success are in some form or another; [[Skills|Skill]] tests that are determined completely deterministically can even work against the pattern. [[Balancing Effects]] can give players [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] simply because the games provide help to them, but this may backfire if clearly detected by the players and then lead to a lost perception of influence instead.Similarly, [[Player Augmentations]] (such as [[Auto-Aim]]) can both make players have or lose [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] depending on how they perceive their own agency in the game.
+Giving players more control over gameplay is primarily done through [[Facilitating Rewards]] of different sorts. Providing players with [[Abilities]] that at least seem relevant to their goals can provide an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] if the players can misjudge how much influence they actually are given. This can further be promoted through [[Buffs]], [[Increased Abilities]], [[New Abilities]], [[Tools]], or access to [[Controllers]] regardless of how large the gameplay benefit is or if these are [[Temporary Abilities]]; this simply because the mentioned patterns cause a change in the level of influence the players have (this may be especially true in games with [[Red Queen Dilemmas]]). [[Skills]] are not as effective as the suggestions just given since [[Skills]] often state how likely success are in some form or another; [[Skills|Skill]] tests that are determined completely deterministically can even work against the pattern. [[Balancing Effects]] can give players [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] simply because the games provide help to them, but this may backfire if clearly detected by the players and then lead to a lost perception of influence instead.Similarly, [[Player Augmentations]] (such as [[Auto-Aim]]) can both make players have or lose [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] depending on how they perceive their own agency in the game.
 For providing control over gameplay, letting players have a [[Determinable Chance to Succeed]] can be a basis for [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. Even if this may seem paradoxical since they know exactly how big chance they have to complete some action or goal, the figure shown to them may not be the actual chance succeeding. For the chance of single actions, [[Interruptible Actions]] may add extra uncertainty and thereby make the figure not accurate of the real chance of success. For goals that require many actions the chances shown may not take into considerations of actions taken by [[Enemies]] or other players in [[Multiplayer Games]], and simply adding up the probabilities may skew players' expectations to be too great. [[Grinding]] may be another way to achieve the same effect, since even if one has a small chance of succeeding one may believe that one can after many actions reach a goal. [[Randomness]] can achieved [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] but this is a volatile solution since it depends on players feeling that they have [[Luck]], and it they do not the [[Randomness]] counters the effect rather than supports it. [[Fudged Results]] instantiated through [[Extra Chances]] can compensate for this to a certain degree. This perception is also brittle in the sense that players with [[Strategic Knowledge]] about the [[Randomness]] or about the statistics involved will not have the perception (even with the presence of [[Extra Chances]]), and for games with [[Replayability]] many players may achieve this form of [[Gameplay Mastery]]. Even so this is one of the few ways to support [[No Direct Player Influence]].
@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 [[Game Masters]] can provide as many possible actions to players as they find plausible while maintaining [[Thematic Consistency]]. Further, they can skew the outcome to players' benefit (but typically have to do this to both maintain [[Thematic Consistency]] and [[Player Balance]]) and can specifically fake the [[Randomness]] that they are responsible for generating through [[Feigned Die Rolls]]. These possibilities do together make [[Game Masters]] able to give players an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. However, since [[Game Masters]] can also cause [[Ultra-Powerful Events]] whenever they choose to, they may work against [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] if they are too liberal with using their power. [[Companions]] is one tool that can be used by [[Game Masters]] for this purpose, but those under the control of [[Algorithmic Agents]] can also be used in this way. The ability of other people that those playing the game, e.g. through [[Non-Player Help]], can also work against the pattern since it lowers the overall influence the players themselves have on the outcome of the game.
-[[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] can be difficult on a global level to maintain in [[Unwinnable Games]], or those with [[Drop-In/Drop-Out]] or enforced [[No-Ops]]. The same also applies to games with [[Challenging Gameplay]], e.g. those with [[Algorithmic Agents]] that oppose the players too well (those that play too badly cause problems for this pattern as well). To achieve its' presence in these cases, one instead has to focus on giving players' too strong impressions of their own influence on a local level. One way to achieve this is through [[Smooth Learning Curves]], since these can let players have a good chance of success initially and maintain that by slowly increasing the difficulty. This can be complemented by [[Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment]] or other [[Handicap Systems]] so that the game system behind the scenes makes the game easier at whatever points players happen to have problems (but this solution has the same problem as [[Randomness]]; if players have [[Strategic Knowledge]] about its presence it may hinder rather than support the intended effect). For [[Unwinnable Games]], use of the [[Red Queen Dilemma]] pattern can give an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] since the actual improvement provided by for example [[Tools]], [[New Abilities]], and [[Improved Abilities]], can be countered through more difficult [[Enemies]] and [[Traps]]. This is typically combined with [[Abstract Player Construct Development]] or [[Character Development]], and can be boosted through [[Player-Created Characters]] or the [[Creative Control]] that [[Player-Planned Development]] allows. Another approach is to reward players that have reached a certain level by making them into [[Entitled Players]]; having powers not directly related to the gameplay but to the game can give a different type of influence. While this can be used also in games that can be won, in [[Unwinnable Games]] there is less risk of players misusing their influence.
+[[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] can be difficult on a global level to maintain in [[Unwinnable Games]], or those with [[Drop-In/Drop-Out]] or enforced [[No-Ops]]. The same also applies to games with [[Challenging Gameplay]], e.g. those with [[Algorithmic Agents]] that oppose the players too well (those that play too badly cause problems for this pattern as well). To achieve its' presence in these cases, one instead has to focus on giving players' too strong impressions of their own influence on a local level. One way to achieve this is through [[Smooth Learning Curves]], since these can let players have a good chance of success initially and maintain that by slowly increasing the difficulty. This can be complemented by [[Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment]] or other [[Handicap Systems]] so that the game system behind the scenes makes the game easier at whatever points players happen to have problems (but this solution has the same problem as [[Randomness]]; if players have [[Strategic Knowledge]] about its presence it may hinder rather than support the intended effect). For [[Unwinnable Games]], use of the [[Red Queen Dilemmas]] can give an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] since the actual improvement provided by for example [[Tools]], [[New Abilities]], and [[Improved Abilities]], can be countered through more difficult [[Enemies]] and [[Traps]]. This is typically combined with [[Abstract Player Construct Development]] or [[Character Development]], and can be boosted through [[Player-Created Characters]] or the [[Creative Control]] that [[Player-Planned Development]] allows. Another approach is to reward players that have reached a certain level by making them into [[Entitled Players]]; having powers not directly related to the gameplay but to the game can give a different type of influence. While this can be used also in games that can be won, in [[Unwinnable Games]] there is less risk of players misusing their influence.
 [[Sanctioned Cheating]] is a way of providing [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] to players by creating a category of possible activities that are in a gray zone between being allowed and not being allowed.
@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 [[Player-Decided Distributions]], [[Player-Planned Development]],
 [[Predetermined Story Structures]],
-[[Progress Indicators]], [[Randomness]], [[Red Queen Dilemma]],
+[[Progress Indicators]], [[Randomness]],
 [[Sanctioned Cheating]],
 [[Smooth Learning Curves]], [[Tactical Planning]],

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Given that players' perceptions of influence in a games is a highly subjective issue, designing for this pattern to occur in games is difficult and many solutions can easily backfire if players realize that a certain pattern is used to try and achieve an erroneous opinion of their own importance. In fact, when players no longer become better at playing a game and fully understand their possibilities of influencing the game, it may be impossible to achieve the pattern for those players. Since one way of no being able to improve in a game is to have fully mastered it, [[Gameplay Mastery]] is typically in conflict with [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. That being said, this pattern can mainly be instantiated in games in two ways. First, through affecting how strongly players can control the gameplay and, second, how many options players have when trying to affect it. These do not have to be strongly related but can of course be combined. In addition to this, players can be given much influence on one level of interaction within the game without being able to change the way the game develops on overall.
-Providing players with [[Abilities]] that at least seem relevant to their goals can provide an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] if the players can misjudge how much influence they actually are given. This can further be promoted through [[Buffs]], [[Increased Abilities]], [[New Abilities]], [[Tools]], or access to [[Controllers]] regardless of how large the gameplay benefit is or if these are [[Temporary Abilities]]; this simply because the mentioned patterns cause a change in the level of influence the players have (this may be especially true in games with [[Red Queen Dilemma]] structures). [[Skills]] are not as effective as the suggestions just given since [[Skills]] often state how likely success are in some form or another; [[Skills|Skill]] tests that are determined completely deterministically can even work against the pattern. [[Balancing Effects]] can give players [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] simply because the games provide help to them, but this may backfire if clearly detected by the players and then lead to a lost perception of influence instead.Similarly, [[Player Augmentations]] (such as [[Auto-Aim]]) can both make players have or lose [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] depending on how they perceive their own agency in the game.
+Giving players more control over gameplay is primarily done through [[Facilitating Rewards]] of different sorts. Providing players with [[Abilities]] that at least seem relevant to their goals can provide an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] if the players can misjudge how much influence they actually are given. This can further be promoted through [[Buffs]], [[Increased Abilities]], [[New Abilities]], [[Tools]], or access to [[Controllers]] regardless of how large the gameplay benefit is or if these are [[Temporary Abilities]]; this simply because the mentioned patterns cause a change in the level of influence the players have (this may be especially true in games with [[Red Queen Dilemma]] structures). [[Skills]] are not as effective as the suggestions just given since [[Skills]] often state how likely success are in some form or another; [[Skills|Skill]] tests that are determined completely deterministically can even work against the pattern. [[Balancing Effects]] can give players [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] simply because the games provide help to them, but this may backfire if clearly detected by the players and then lead to a lost perception of influence instead.Similarly, [[Player Augmentations]] (such as [[Auto-Aim]]) can both make players have or lose [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] depending on how they perceive their own agency in the game.
 For providing control over gameplay, letting players have a [[Determinable Chance to Succeed]] can be a basis for [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. Even if this may seem paradoxical since they know exactly how big chance they have to complete some action or goal, the figure shown to them may not be the actual chance succeeding. For the chance of single actions, [[Interruptible Actions]] may add extra uncertainty and thereby make the figure not accurate of the real chance of success. For goals that require many actions the chances shown may not take into considerations of actions taken by [[Enemies]] or other players in [[Multiplayer Games]], and simply adding up the probabilities may skew players' expectations to be too great. [[Grinding]] may be another way to achieve the same effect, since even if one has a small chance of succeeding one may believe that one can after many actions reach a goal. [[Randomness]] can achieved [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] but this is a volatile solution since it depends on players feeling that they have [[Luck]], and it they do not the [[Randomness]] counters the effect rather than supports it. [[Fudged Results]] instantiated through [[Extra Chances]] can compensate for this to a certain degree. This perception is also brittle in the sense that players with [[Strategic Knowledge]] about the [[Randomness]] or about the statistics involved will not have the perception (even with the presence of [[Extra Chances]]), and for games with [[Replayability]] many players may achieve this form of [[Gameplay Mastery]]. Even so this is one of the few ways to support [[No Direct Player Influence]].
@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 [[Entitled Players]],
 [[Extra Chances]],
 [[Feigned Die Rolls]],
 [[Freedom of Choice]], [[Free Gift Inventories]], [[Fudged Results]], [[Game Masters]], [[Grinding]],

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 Presenting many options to players is quite easily done with [[Freedom of Choice]]. It is a usually an requirement for [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] since even if the players' actions could affect the game world in significant ways the players' contribution is diminished if there was no other choice. However, it is not always necessary. Games that test players' skills in performing certain tasks through [[Dexterity-Based Actions]], e.g. [[Timing]], [[Aim & Shoot]], [[Maneuvering]], let players have a possibility to influence the outcome of the gameplay even if there is only one option of what should be done. For [[Aim & Shoot]], this can be augmented through [[Auto-Aim]] functionality which can make players perform better without them being able to notice if it is due to themselves or the game system. Having many options is most interesting when one has enough time to consider them. Since this can be difficult to provide in games with [[Limited Planning Abilities]], e.g. through requiring [[Attention Swapping]] or having [[Time Pressure]], these patterns counter [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. In contrast, games with [[Tactical Planning]] provide these as do [[Turn-Based Games]] and [[Tick-Based Games]] when there is enough time between each tick.
-[[Imperfect Information]] can help create [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] because players may not know how good their true chances are and wish (unconsciously) to believe that they have larger chances to influence the game than they actually do. This can especially be the case when [[Imperfect Information]] in used in combination with [[End State Scoring]], but the latter pattern can provide [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] on its own if it too complex for players to calculate every players positions before the game actually ends.
+[[Imperfect Information]] can help create [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] because players may not know how good their true chances are and wish (unconsciously) to believe that they have larger chances to influence the game than they actually do. This can especially be the case when [[Imperfect Information]] in used in combination with [[End State Scoring]], but the latter pattern can provide [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] on its own if it too complex for players to calculate every players positions before the game actually ends. The promise of [[Illusionary Rewards]] is a way that players can be tricked to having an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] by thinking they can get [[Rewards]] which are in reality unattainable or do not affect game states or game outcomes.
 [[Game Masters]] can provide as many possible actions to players as they find plausible while maintaining [[Thematic Consistency]]. Further, they can skew the outcome to players' benefit (but typically have to do this to both maintain [[Thematic Consistency]] and [[Player Balance]]) and can specifically fake the [[Randomness]] that they are responsible for generating through [[Feigned Die Rolls]]. These possibilities do together make [[Game Masters]] able to give players an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. However, since [[Game Masters]] can also cause [[Ultra-Powerful Events]] whenever they choose to, they may work against [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] if they are too liberal with using their power. [[Companions]] is one tool that can be used by [[Game Masters]] for this purpose, but those under the control of [[Algorithmic Agents]] can also be used in this way. The ability of other people that those playing the game, e.g. through [[Non-Player Help]], can also work against the pattern since it lowers the overall influence the players themselves have on the outcome of the game.
@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 [[Freedom of Choice]], [[Free Gift Inventories]], [[Fudged Results]], [[Game Masters]], [[Grinding]],
 [[Handicap Systems]],
 [[Increased Abilities]],
 [[Imperfect Information]],

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 == Using the pattern ==
-Given that players' perceptions of influence in a games is a highly subjective issue, designing for this pattern to occur in games is difficult and many solutions can easily backfire if players realize that a certain pattern is used to try and achieve an erroneous opinion of their own importance. In fact, when players no longer become better at playing a game and fully understand their possibilities of influencing the game, it may be impossible to achieve the pattern for those players. Since one way of no being able to improve in a game is to have fully mastered it, [[Game Mastery]] is typically in conflict with [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. That being said, this pattern can mainly be instantiated in games in two ways. First, through affecting how strongly players can control the gameplay and, second, how many options players have when trying to affect it. These do not have to be strongly related but can of course be combined. In addition to this, players can be given much influence on one level of interaction within the game without being able to change the way the game develops on overall.
+Given that players' perceptions of influence in a games is a highly subjective issue, designing for this pattern to occur in games is difficult and many solutions can easily backfire if players realize that a certain pattern is used to try and achieve an erroneous opinion of their own importance. In fact, when players no longer become better at playing a game and fully understand their possibilities of influencing the game, it may be impossible to achieve the pattern for those players. Since one way of no being able to improve in a game is to have fully mastered it, [[Gameplay Mastery]] is typically in conflict with [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. That being said, this pattern can mainly be instantiated in games in two ways. First, through affecting how strongly players can control the gameplay and, second, how many options players have when trying to affect it. These do not have to be strongly related but can of course be combined. In addition to this, players can be given much influence on one level of interaction within the game without being able to change the way the game develops on overall.
 Providing players with [[Abilities]] that at least seem relevant to their goals can provide an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] if the players can misjudge how much influence they actually are given. This can further be promoted through [[Buffs]], [[Increased Abilities]], [[New Abilities]], [[Tools]], or access to [[Controllers]] regardless of how large the gameplay benefit is or if these are [[Temporary Abilities]]; this simply because the mentioned patterns cause a change in the level of influence the players have (this may be especially true in games with [[Red Queen Dilemma]] structures). [[Skills]] are not as effective as the suggestions just given since [[Skills]] often state how likely success are in some form or another; [[Skills|Skill]] tests that are determined completely deterministically can even work against the pattern. [[Balancing Effects]] can give players [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] simply because the games provide help to them, but this may backfire if clearly detected by the players and then lead to a lost perception of influence instead.Similarly, [[Player Augmentations]] (such as [[Auto-Aim]]) can both make players have or lose [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] depending on how they perceive their own agency in the game.
-For providing control over gameplay, letting players have a [[Determinable Chance to Succeed]] can be a basis for [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. Even if this may seem paradoxical since they know exactly how big chance they have to complete some action or goal, the figure shown to them may not be the actual chance succeeding. For the chance of single actions, [[Interruptible Actions]] may add extra uncertainty and thereby make the figure not accurate of the real chance of success. For goals that require many actions the chances shown may not take into considerations of actions taken by [[Enemies]] or other players in [[Multiplayer Games]], and simply adding up the probabilities may skew players' expectations to be too great. [[Grinding]] may be another way to achieve the same effect, since even if one has a small chance of succeeding one may believe that one can after many actions reach a goal. [[Randomness]] can achieved [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] but this is a volatile solution since it depends on players feeling that they have [[Luck]], and it they do not the [[Randomness]] counters the effect rather than supports it. [[Fudged Results]] instantiated through [[Extra Chances]] can compensate for this to a certain degree. This perception is also brittle in the sense that players with [[Strategic Knowledge]] about the [[Randomness]] or about the statistics involved will not have the perception (even with the presence of [[Extra Chances]]), and for games with [[Replayability]] many players may achieve this form of [[Game Mastery]]. Even so this is one of the few ways to support [[No Direct Player Influence]].
+For providing control over gameplay, letting players have a [[Determinable Chance to Succeed]] can be a basis for [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. Even if this may seem paradoxical since they know exactly how big chance they have to complete some action or goal, the figure shown to them may not be the actual chance succeeding. For the chance of single actions, [[Interruptible Actions]] may add extra uncertainty and thereby make the figure not accurate of the real chance of success. For goals that require many actions the chances shown may not take into considerations of actions taken by [[Enemies]] or other players in [[Multiplayer Games]], and simply adding up the probabilities may skew players' expectations to be too great. [[Grinding]] may be another way to achieve the same effect, since even if one has a small chance of succeeding one may believe that one can after many actions reach a goal. [[Randomness]] can achieved [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] but this is a volatile solution since it depends on players feeling that they have [[Luck]], and it they do not the [[Randomness]] counters the effect rather than supports it. [[Fudged Results]] instantiated through [[Extra Chances]] can compensate for this to a certain degree. This perception is also brittle in the sense that players with [[Strategic Knowledge]] about the [[Randomness]] or about the statistics involved will not have the perception (even with the presence of [[Extra Chances]]), and for games with [[Replayability]] many players may achieve this form of [[Gameplay Mastery]]. Even so this is one of the few ways to support [[No Direct Player Influence]].
 Presenting many options to players is quite easily done with [[Freedom of Choice]]. It is a usually an requirement for [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] since even if the players' actions could affect the game world in significant ways the players' contribution is diminished if there was no other choice. However, it is not always necessary. Games that test players' skills in performing certain tasks through [[Dexterity-Based Actions]], e.g. [[Timing]], [[Aim & Shoot]], [[Maneuvering]], let players have a possibility to influence the outcome of the gameplay even if there is only one option of what should be done. For [[Aim & Shoot]], this can be augmented through [[Auto-Aim]] functionality which can make players perform better without them being able to notice if it is due to themselves or the game system. Having many options is most interesting when one has enough time to consider them. Since this can be difficult to provide in games with [[Limited Planning Abilities]], e.g. through requiring [[Attention Swapping]] or having [[Time Pressure]], these patterns counter [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. In contrast, games with [[Tactical Planning]] provide these as do [[Turn-Based Games]] and [[Tick-Based Games]] when there is enough time between each tick.
@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 === Potentially Conflicting With ===
 [[Ability Losses]], [[Algorithmic Agents]], [[Attention Swapping]], [[Balancing Effects]],
-[[Challenging Gameplay]], [[Cutscenes]], [[Decreased Abilities]], [[Determinable Chance to Succeed]], [[Drop-In/Drop-Out]], [[Dynamic Alliances]], [[Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment]], [[Enemies]], [[Enforced Agent Behavior]], [[Game Masters]], [[Game Mastery]],
+[[Challenging Gameplay]], [[Cutscenes]], [[Decreased Abilities]], [[Determinable Chance to Succeed]], [[Drop-In/Drop-Out]], [[Dynamic Alliances]], [[Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment]], [[Enemies]], [[Enforced Agent Behavior]], [[Game Masters]], [[Gameplay Mastery]],
 [[Helplessness]],
 [[Interruptible Actions]], [[Kingmaker]], [[Limited Foresight]], [[Limited Planning Abilities]],

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 == Consequences ==
-[[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] can affect [[Emotional Engrossment]] and [[Player Agency]] as it makes players feel that their actions are important in a game and that there is [[Value of Effort]] for these. The possibility to influence encourages [[Stimulated Planning]] but this, and the perception of influence, is restricted by [[Limited Foresight]] and [[Limited Planning Abilities]] in the game. [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] can mask or make it more difficult to detect a [[Predictable Winner]] as it can create [[Performance Uncertainty]] on ''oneself''; this can be used to make gameplay feel meaningful even when outcomes would otherwise be felt to be given. In the same vein, [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] can be used to let players feel that they can affect games that might actually have so [[Complex Gameplay]] that players in the beginning do not know important consequences of their actions.
+[[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] can affect [[Emotional Engrossment]] and [[Player Agency]] as it makes players feel that their actions are important in a game and that there is [[Value of Effort]] for these. The possibility to influence encourages [[Stimulated Planning]] but this, and the perception of influence, is restricted by [[Limited Foresight]] and [[Limited Planning Abilities]] in the game. [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] can mask or make it more difficult to detect a [[Predictable Winner]] as it can create [[Performance Uncertainty]] on ''oneself''; this can be used to make gameplay feel meaningful even when outcomes would otherwise be felt to be given. In the same vein, [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] can be used to let players feel that they can affect games that might actually have so [[Complex Gameplay]] that players in the beginning do not know important consequences of their actions. It can also be used to make players feel they have [[Further Player Improvement Potential]] than they actually have.
 As mentioned above, patterns such as [[Challenging Gameplay]], [[No-Ops]], [[Drop-In/Drop-Out]], [[Randomness]], and [[Unwinnable Games]] in themselves may diminish players' sense of being able to affect the outcome of the gameplay in a game. [[Predetermined Story Structures]] has a mixed relationship to [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. It can, due to the limitations on possible actions and what order events need to occur the pattern creates, limit players' in having an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. This is most clearly the case when [[Cutscenes]] are prsent but this can also be the case for [[Scripted Information Sequences]] if the fact that there is a script becomes apparent. Indeed, beginning to play a game that one knows has a strong story is done with the [[Extra-Game Information]] that one has a limited impact on the possible stories that can develop. However, [[Predetermined Story Structures]] can of course put players in positions where they have unproportionally large influence of the diegetic environment compared to what they control in this environment, so the pattern can also create [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]. Related to [[Predetermined Story Structures]], [[Enforced Agent Behavior]] and [[Ultra-Powerful Events]] can destroy the sense of [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] in games, even if players can influence the initiation of the latter, since they cannot affect their development. [[Non-Consistent Narration]], as for example through the use of [[Instances]], also limits players' sense of power over the story development since the stories they create through their gameplay may not have any effect on the overarching narration of the game's world. Also related to [[Predetermined Story Structures]], [[Surprises]] (e.g. [[Surprise Attacks]]) are likewise events that can destroy the perception since they cannot be anticipated.
@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 === Can Modulate ===
 [[Complex Gameplay]],
 [[Performance Uncertainty]]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 [[Non-Consistent Narration]],
 [[Non-Player Help]], [[No-Ops]],
 [[Player Kicking]],
 [[Predetermined Story Structures]],