No Direct Player Influence - Revision history

Staffan Björk at 15:09, 19 March 2018

2018-03-19T15:09:25Z

Staffan Björk at 10:15, 11 August 2015

2015-08-11T10:15:54Z

Staffan Björk at 18:45, 3 August 2015

2015-08-03T18:45:23Z

Staffan Björk at 13:42, 6 July 2015

2015-07-06T13:42:04Z

Staffan Björk: /* Relations */

2015-01-10T13:03:26Z

‎Relations

Staffan Björk at 13:02, 10 January 2015

2015-01-10T13:02:10Z

Staffan Björk at 13:00, 10 January 2015

2015-01-10T13:00:02Z

Staffan Björk at 14:15, 7 January 2015

2015-01-07T14:15:39Z

Staffan Björk at 08:41, 5 January 2015

2015-01-05T08:41:19Z

Staffan Björk at 07:15, 8 October 2012

2012-10-08T07:15:09Z

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 == Using the pattern ==
-Making games have [[No Direct Player Influence]] is easy in one fashion and difficult in another. Easy since instantiating the pattern simply consists of not letting players be able to interact with the systems - in principle enforcing them to continuously making [[No-Ops]]. Difficult since they still need to be interesting and have some type of interaction possible (or else the pattern truly becomes a [[:Category:Negative Patterns|Negative Pattern]]). Typical solutions include the use of [[Solution Uncertainty]], [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]], or [[Meta Games]], in often combined with with use of [[Spectators]].
+Making games have [[No Direct Player Influence]] is easy in one fashion and difficult in another. Easy since instantiating the pattern simply consists of not letting players be able to interact with the systems - in principle enforcing them to continuously making [[No-Ops]]. It may however be difficult since players still need to be interesting and have some type of interaction possible (or else the pattern truly becomes a [[:Category:Negative Patterns|Negative Pattern]]). Typical solutions include the use of [[Solution Uncertainty]], [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]], or [[Meta Games]], in often combined with with use of [[Spectators]]. Basically all of these rely on the design providing [[Extra-Game Actions]] to "players".
 [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] can for the purpose of this pattern most easily be achieved with [[Randomness]] process which players can initiate but any way allowing player to feel [[Luck]] can work. Many ways work, [[Cards]] for [[Baccarat]], and spinning a wheel and ball for [[Roulette]], but the use of [[Dice]] (as in [[Craps]]) may be more efficient since it offers close tangible interaction through shaking.
@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 === Can Be Instantiated By ===
 [[Algorithmic Agents]],
 [[No-Ops]],
 [[Solution Uncertainty]]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 === Can Be Instantiated By ===
 [[No-Ops]],
 [[Solution Uncertainty]]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 Quite naturally, [[No Direct Player Influence]] is incompatible with [[Free Game Element Manipulation]].
-[[Performance Uncertainty]] and [[Player Unpredictability]] are affected by [[No Direct Player Influence]] in that the consequences of how players decide to affect the game state is revealed later.
+[[Performance Uncertainty]] and [[Player Unpredictability]] are affected by [[No Direct Player Influence]] in that the consequences of how players decide to affect the game state is revealed later. Games with [[No Direct Player Influence]] can have [[Further Player Improvement Potential]]
 == Relations ==
@@ Line 65: / Line 66: @@
 [[Free Game Element Manipulation]],
 [[Freedom of Choice]],
 [[Player Agency]]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 == Consequences ==
-Games with [[No Direct Player Influence]] always [[Zero-Player Games]] in some fashion and predetermined [[Enforced Agent Behavior]] if there are any [[Agents]] present. They also always limits players' [[Freedom of Choice]] in some aspect, although it may still exist as [[Creative Control]] before gameplay begins or through the delusion created by an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] of effects that are really based upon [[Randomness]]. [[No Direct Player Influence]] games based upon creating [[Algorithmic Agents]] can also be seen as an example of [[Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership]].
+Games with [[No Direct Player Influence]] limit [[Player Agency]] to the level that they are always [[Zero-Player Games]] in some fashion and predetermined [[Enforced Agent Behavior]] if there are any [[Agents]] present. They also always limits players' [[Freedom of Choice]] in some aspect, although it may still exist as [[Creative Control]] before gameplay begins or through the delusion created by an [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] of effects that are really based upon [[Randomness]]. [[No Direct Player Influence]] games based upon creating [[Algorithmic Agents]] can also be seen as an example of [[Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership]].
 As long as players' instruction can be given to without requiring the other players to be there, and that the results of them can likewise be given individually, games with [[No Direct Player Influence]] naturally provide a basis for [[Asynchronous Gameplay]]. This may however not result in [[Common Experiences]] depending on how much the players identify with the actions of their agents.
@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 === Potentially Conflicting With ===
 [[Free Game Element Manipulation]],
-[[Freedom of Choice]]
+[[Freedom of Choice]],
 == History ==

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 === Can Modulate ===
 [[Performance Uncertainty]],
-[[Player Unpredictability]],
+[[Player Unpredictability]]
-[[Solution Uncertainty]]
 === Can Be Instantiated By ===
-[[No-Ops]]
+[[No-Ops]],
 [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] together with [[Luck]] or [[Randomness]]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ''Games where players direct influence on the actual gameplay is non-existent or close to non-existent.''
-It may seem strange to consider games where players cannot influence the outcome directly since this seems to state there would be no [[Underlying_Assumptions_and_Concepts#gameplay|gameplay]]. However, the first games of chance seem to have come to being from the use of dice and lots as divination methods <ref name="Adkins"/><ref name="Johnston"/>, i.e. one let the gods decide who should have the ante. For these, it is enough for players to be 'emotionally attached' (as noted by Juul as begin part of his definition of games<ref name="Juul"/>) and believing that they are exerting effort to influence the outcome (another of Juul's characteristics of games<ref name="Juul"/>) however illusionary that latter part may be. Later examples show that another solution it to make players exert effort before the system is activated.
+It may seem strange to consider games where players cannot influence the outcome directly since this seems to state there would be no [[Underlying_Assumptions_and_Concepts#gameplay|gameplay]]. However, the first games of chance seem to have come to being from the use of dice and lots as divination methods <ref name="Adkins"/><ref name="Johnston"/>, i.e. one let the gods decide who should have the ante. For these, it is enough for players to be 'emotionally attached' (as noted by Juul as begin one part of his definition of games<ref name="Juul"/>) and believing that they are exerting effort to influence the outcome (another of Juul's characteristics of games<ref name="Juul"/>) however illusionary that latter part may be. Later examples show that another solution it to make players exert effort before the system is activated.
 Note: ''This pattern uses players varyingly to signify those participating in a game or a meta game''.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Quite naturally, [[No Direct Player Influence]] is incompatible with [[Free Game Element Manipulation]].
 == Relations ==
 === Can Instantiate ===
-[[Asynchronous Gameplay]], [[Enforced Agent Behavior]], [[Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership]], [[Zero-Player Games]]
+[[Asynchronous Gameplay]],
 === Can Modulate ===
+[[Performance Uncertainty]]
 === Can Be Instantiated By ===
@@ Line 49: / Line 54: @@
 === Can Be Modulated By ===
-[[Action Programming]], [[Spectators]]
+[[Action Programming]],
 === Possible Closure Effects ===