No-Ops

Player actions that perform no change on the game state.

Even if players usually need to perform various actions to reach their goals in games, sometimes the best action may be to do nothing and wait for the environment to change. These actions are called No-Ops (from the instructions from programming with the same name) but do not also be chosen by the players - they can also be forced on them as punishments for other players or as effects of the player's own actions.

Examples

Missing one or several turns in turn-based Board Games are examples of No-Ops. This may end a turn prematurely as a penalty, as found in the turnover rules of Bloodbowl but may also refer to the next turn for the player (e.g. the effect of the Chivalric Knight card in Talisman or becoming Arrested or Lost in Time and Space in Arkham Horror). In contrast, powering down in RoboRally to repair damage is a voluntary action chosen by players.

Sneaking in First-Person Shooters requires periods of being still. This can for example be found in the Thief series where one needs to combines silent and careful movement with periods of inactivity to avoid detection.

Using the pattern

No Direct Player Influence

Downtime

Turnover

Using the pattern

The prime design choice for No-Ops is if they are voluntary or not. Turn-Based Games can enforce players to do actions every turn in order for the game to continue and may have No-Ops as Privileged Abilities. No-Ops are also used in these games as a form of Penalty for performing Privileged Abilities. Tick-Based Games and Real-Time Games cannot require players to do actions all the time so they support voluntary No-Ops. But this is a matter of perspective, in Real-Time Games where the player's Avatar or Units move continuously, which can be described as applying The Show Must Go On on players' game elements, this can be seen as an action and players only have the choice between doing the pre-chosen action or another from a set of possible actions.

The possibility of doing No-Ops, or actions with little consequence to the overall game state, is a requirement for Camping. Similarly it is often used to allow Stealth goals.

Consequences

Negotiation are examples of No-Op actions since they do not directly change the game state.

Taken to an extreme, No-Ops can be used to create No Direct Player Influence by simply making it the only possible 'action' in a game.

Sometimes No-Ops need to be included in games simply because players cannot do anything due to lack of the proper resources. One such example can be found in Dominion when one draws a deck consisting entirely of victory point cards since one cannot then play any action card or when one has no legal Captures to make in Othello.

Interface Aspects

Enforced No-Ops are nearly always shown clearly to players through Game State Indicators to avoid players misplacing any frustration on a game's interface.

Consequences

Having the possibility of No-Ops widens players' Freedom of Choice and allows Timing of actions, for example to wait for other players to do actions before acting themselves. As No-Ops can be perceived as being force to wait, having too many of them consecutively may hinder reasonable waiting times. Extended Actions that do not have an effect on the game state before they are completed can be seen as consisting of an initiating action, several No-Ops, and a finishing action where the game state is updated.

Forcing players to do No-Ops while noticing the action of Enemies can increase Tension but so can doing voluntary No-Ops to wait for Enemies to appear. Extensive amount of No-Ops in games of course negatively affects Varied Gameplay.

Relations

Can Instantiate

No Direct Player Influence

Can Be Instantiated By

Negotiation

Can Be Modulated By

Game State Indicators

History

An updated version of the pattern No-Ops that was part of the original collection in the book Patterns in Game Design.

Acknowledgements

-