Difference between revisions of "Betrayal"

Revision as of 10:10, 15 January 2011

The letdown of an explicit or implicit agreement with another agent.

Games can put players can be put in situations where promises to, or the expectations of, other players can be broken. These acts of Betrayal often cause friction between players, and therefore players betraying other players usually have a strong incentive to do so. This may be due to individual gains received by the Betrayal, hidden loyalties, differences in player positions in the game, revenge for previous injustices, or situations where the game forces players to choose which players they will betray.

Examples

Left 4 Dead series

Junta

Illuminati

The negotiation game So Long Sucker by John Nash requires players to provide help to other players to achieve captures, with only the promise of future help as collateral.

The board game Diplomacy requires players to enter alliances with other players in the struggle over Europe, but betraying agreements can be the only way to break deadlocks or achieve supremacy. In this game Betrayal is optional, while in the game Intrigue the game mechanics often cause situations where players have committed them to several deals which later turn out to be incompatible and thus forcing players to Betrayal each other.

Roleplaying Dedicated Game Facilitators Challenging Gameplay

Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game Paranoia

Factions

Using the pattern

Example: Much of the enjoyment and tension of Diplomacy is in the possibility to betray and backstab other players. This sometimes leads to very intense diplomacy phases where the players try to get more information about what other players really try to achieve in the game.

Example: The negotiation game Intrigue forces players into situations where they sometimes must betray another player due to having made certain promises to several different players that appeared to be unrelated when they were given but later became related.

Betrayal requires that one player in the game has some Committed Goals whose completion is dependent on other players' actions, even if the commitment may only be a promise and the goals may be Player Defined Goals. Thus, Betrayal can happen in almost any situation where the players are cooperating in some way, usually towards Mutual Goals. Less severe cases of Betrayal can happen in Collaborative Actions and in situations of Delayed Reciprocity such as Player Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties or Trading with Delayed Effects. One way, and perhaps the best, to enhance the possibility of Betrayal is to give the players at least a perceived chance of reaping Individual Rewards for betraying the other players. This form of Betrayal is the basis for some Social Dilemmas. An example is where Tied Results can be perceived and Rewards are distributed evenly: in these cases, players may negotiate to have a Tied Result in order to use their Resources and efforts in other parts of the game but have the possibility of Betrayal to gain the whole Reward for themselves.

Betrayal is one of the classic themes that can be used to create Narrative Structures and Role Reversal events. The interplay of trust and deceit is a way to achieve Emotional Immersion as Betrayal will almost inevitably create strong emotions in both parties involved. Betrayal has to come as a Surprise for those who are betrayed, or it loses much of its emotional impact. This can be achieved, for example, by having a Delayed Effect for Collaborative Actions and using Asymmetric Information about the actions the players have performed, which also raises the levels of Anticipation. In most cases, Betrayal is used together with Bluffing. The players who are about to betray other players have to conceal their true intentions and in some games, for example Diplomacy, Bluffing to conceal Betrayal is the basis for much of the enjoyment of the game.

The possibility of Betrayal in games gives players a form of Player Decided Results, and the power this gives most likely increases Tension between players and has a negative effect on Team Play and possible Cooperation. As is the case with Bluffing, even the perceived possibility of Betrayal can increase Social Interaction between players. In these cases, the heightened Tension is due to the players trying to find out what the other players' true intentions are. Betrayal, in any case, is much more common in Uncommitted Alliances than in stable Alliances such as teams. The effect of Betrayal is more drastic when the other players feel that the Alliance is stable. For example, a Soccer player perceived as betraying his team in the World Cup finals will probably be treated as a real-world betrayer and suffer the consequences.

For players to put themselves in positions where Betrayal of their trust can occur requires them to make Risk/Reward calculations and heavily influences how Negotiation is conducted. The actual action of putting oneself in the position where one can be betrayed is a Leap of Faith and if the Betrayal takes place, it is usually the source for Conflict.

Casual Gameplay

Inherent Mistrust

Negotiation

Social Dilemmas

Delayed Reciprocity

The use of Traitors

Diegetic Aspects

Interface Aspects

Narrative Aspects

Consequences

Relations

Can Instantiate

Can Modulate

Can Be Instantiated By

Can Be Modulated By

Possible Closure Effects

Potentially Conflicting With

An updated version of the pattern Betrayal that was part of the original collection in the book Patterns in Game Design^[1].

References

1. ↑ Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.

Acknowledgments

-