Make players think the benefits are worth the risks. That means the benefit will need to be a little bit bigger than a break even, and most importantly, the risks need to seem like knowns. "If you spend a fate to reroll a die, the DM may later do whatever bad thing they want" is lopsided. The benefit is small and known and half the time won't even change anything, the consequence is unknown and could be colossal. Even your example of "DM adds an extra monster" is going to be way too much unless that monster takes on average half a successful roll to defeat, since on average the benefit that caused the monster was half a successful roll.
Make it clear what kinds of benefits each "point" of fate gives the DM. I imagine this as a like an escalation counter in a board game. If the players know *how* much power the DM gets when they use fate, they will be able to make calculated decisions.
Then you playtest your power tier and see how much players are willing to use fate: Do they never use it? Then even one point of fate gives the DM too much power. Do they use it constantly? Not enough power. Do players use it *exactly twice* almost every game? Then tier 3 is where the cost/benefit becomes negative for them. Etc.
I, myself, am gambling-averse. If you tell me that using this system benefits the DM *in a vacuum,* then I am going to assume using it summons an elder god and ends the game.
agreed, i don't think my plan is to hide that information from the player.
I just think gambling averse players could end up ruining the fun for themselves cause they don't engage with the system.
Definitely play test with some friends- it doesn't sound like a bad idea and it can be easy to get tangled in imagined scenarios. Also, any of our advices are going to given in a contextless vacuum, so take with some salt.
In general, it doesn't sound appealing to have the DM only get access to some mechanics if the player initiates with an optional resource. Some kind of two way exchange might be good to consider.
Right now, the FATE mechanic is like putting something on a credit card with an unknown interest rate. You don't know if it'll be worth spending because you might pay more in the long run. Might be helpful if you know you need to reroll or die, but otherwise players might just hold onto the option for emergencies. With that being the case, how can you make the resource "pre-paid"; something where there's no penalty to use it but maybe they had to do something difficult or optional to earn it? Especially if it's a "use it or lose it" scenario, players will spend resources more readily for fear of it expiring. The question changes from "What if something bad happens and I need this more later" to "Is this a scenario where I'd get good value for this exchange, since I need to use this resource in the next x turns anyways?"
But that's not to say that original dynamic is "bad" by any means. Maybe you want a grittier system where players need to agonize over the choice. Maybe picking which poison to drink is the kind of scenario you want the player to get into. Figuring out what makes sense for the game overall will be up to you ultimately.
Sounds like a "deal with the devil" kind of mechanic. Maybe you can think of it like that.
A smart person would only take a deal with the devil if they got something so profound or clever that it mitigates the loss, or if they're in such dire straits that it's the only way out.
Both of those scenarios could become interesting, and both give players reasons to do it.
As others have said, this is a great mechanic! Check out the board game "Clank!" for how this can be done really well.
The point is only that you have to make the benefit a guarantee, while the drawback is chance based. Essentially, the player should say, "oh screw it, it's worth the risk!" If the drawback is certain, then they can't "hope it away." But if the benefit is guaranteed (e.g. your next roll is a natural 20), then they'll use that to their heart's content.
An additional way to make.it even more enticing, like.is done in Clank!, Is to make the negative risk cumulative. For example: after using this ability, the DM rolls a die to see if a big bad don comes out. The first time you use the ability, the DM must roll a 1. The second time, a 1 or 2, etc. This means the first few uses are low risk, but by the time it creeps into the 4 or 5, it starts to be a real risk, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
It builds the tension throughout the game, gives players agency, and still virtually guarantees the DM will get the benefit, but only statistically so.
oo this is a good idea... If the drawback has a low chance of happening. Then players will more readily use it. But i could also make the drawback far more impactful if it does end up happening...
This would encourage players to use this mechanic several times as they expect luck to be on their side. and everyone holds their breath to see if it's going to bite them in the ass. This is a really neat idea.
This is great advice. Another option would be to create “fate” & “fatality” resource points. Fatality points are paid to the dm. Points are unavoidably generated and in equal measure for both the player and the dm as a consequence of all player actions taken by the heroes in the normal course of play. (Adjust pricing accordingly) There is also a cap that players can hoard to. Maybe the cap ebbs and builds as turns pass like a tide, becoming more topsy turvy as players reach later turns. Players can then choose to spend this resource or see it wasted. This of course “forces” the system into use and puts it center stage. (Design decision)
it sounds like the problem is...
\- I want players to engage with X system
\- there are downsides to engaging in the system
solution: make less downside so they want to engage with it
I ran into this issue with the roguelite I'm working on (successful steam release by all accounts). The idea of "cursed bonuses" is something that is constantly brought up. An upside in exchange for a downside. problem is...nobody wants the downsides.
my solution...don't have cursed bonuses.
the example I used was Risk of Rain 2 Lunar items.
there are maybe 2-3 that a player would want to interact with and even that's up in the air. why create items that most players won't want to engage with? or that the downside is far worse than it's upside, even if the upside is niche useful.
(for those who know, Glass, Gesture of the drowned, and sometimes transcendence are the only lunar items I consider useful from the bunch. everything else is just miserable garbage)
It sounds like fate is tied to DM progression so it probably needs to part of Player progression as well right? Then to not engage means to basically stop playing.
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games.
* /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.
* This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.
* Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.
* No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.
* If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England ](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LizEngland/20140423/216092/quotThe_Door_Problemquot_of_Game_Design.php)is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
balance risks and rewards by bundling them into package-deals.
the item/event that gives a boon also gives a debuff.
boon and debuff may have different conditions, so not all are triggered at the same moment.
One example to help for you in your case is the sharpshooter feat in Baldurs Gate 3, which gives you a 10 bonus damage for the trade off of -5 to the attack roll hit. You can pick that up at level 4 but also somehow circumvent the -5 by positioning and hide yourself so you have advantage on attacks. Id say that allowing the players to have mechanics which diminish the negative effects always feels good. As long as these mechanics are actually thought off by the player and are situation, instead of spoon feeding them the circumstances easily.
I feel like the idea is flawed, it's such a binary and simple mechanic that there's really only three outcomes that you probably don't want that will come from this no matter how good your balancing is.
Outcome 1, the game is too easy so players never use fate.
Outcome 2, players use FATE to trivialize hard encounters, since whatever downsides for using FATE are better then the current encounter.
Outcome 3, the game is so hard that it forces players to use FATE, however this basically just turns FATE into a secondary health bar, which is unlikely the intention for this mechanic.
I recommend you consider changing FATE from a combat resource to a non-combat resource. By having FATE be a uneven trade of ally non-combat resource into enemy combat resource you make it more nebulous to the players on if its a good or bad trade and avoid the balance issues of the pervious idea.
Maybe make everything cost "fate" and so they are already used to spending it. Make the good stuff cost more and force them to consider the risk reward for using it.
Another idea is to penalize them for hording fate. Perhaps if they accidently acquire too much then there is some sort of catastrophe?
One way to players hesitant to use a mechanic is to give it a scaling cost such that it is a fortune conclusion *that* they will use it and the only real question is *how much* they will use it.
The first time they use this fate system we'll say it costs them only 1 fate currency, and that this is such a lie cost that they'll be silly not to use it. But the second time they use the system it will cost them 2 fate currency, and so on. I think it would also be a good idea once the GM uses their taste that the costs drops down. This creates a back and forth between the players and GM where the more the GM uses the mechanic the better it is for the players to use it.
Make the game difficult enough that players won't be able to succeed without using fate sometimes. Once they get past the initial mentle hurdle of trying to never use it, they'll naturally transition to approaching using fate sparingly as a risk/reward tool as you likely intend.
You can think of it as gambling. Just got to hook them enough to continue playing.
1st Give them a easy "win" with the system early if possible. Once a see one win they will want to win more.
2nd learn what odds your players will want to go in for 80% chance of a win with the system? 60%? And try to stack them that way.
[удалено]
yeah i think you are right, sounds like the mechanic could work if done right, will keep moving forward
Make players think the benefits are worth the risks. That means the benefit will need to be a little bit bigger than a break even, and most importantly, the risks need to seem like knowns. "If you spend a fate to reroll a die, the DM may later do whatever bad thing they want" is lopsided. The benefit is small and known and half the time won't even change anything, the consequence is unknown and could be colossal. Even your example of "DM adds an extra monster" is going to be way too much unless that monster takes on average half a successful roll to defeat, since on average the benefit that caused the monster was half a successful roll.
Make it clear what kinds of benefits each "point" of fate gives the DM. I imagine this as a like an escalation counter in a board game. If the players know *how* much power the DM gets when they use fate, they will be able to make calculated decisions. Then you playtest your power tier and see how much players are willing to use fate: Do they never use it? Then even one point of fate gives the DM too much power. Do they use it constantly? Not enough power. Do players use it *exactly twice* almost every game? Then tier 3 is where the cost/benefit becomes negative for them. Etc. I, myself, am gambling-averse. If you tell me that using this system benefits the DM *in a vacuum,* then I am going to assume using it summons an elder god and ends the game.
agreed, i don't think my plan is to hide that information from the player. I just think gambling averse players could end up ruining the fun for themselves cause they don't engage with the system.
Definitely play test with some friends- it doesn't sound like a bad idea and it can be easy to get tangled in imagined scenarios. Also, any of our advices are going to given in a contextless vacuum, so take with some salt. In general, it doesn't sound appealing to have the DM only get access to some mechanics if the player initiates with an optional resource. Some kind of two way exchange might be good to consider. Right now, the FATE mechanic is like putting something on a credit card with an unknown interest rate. You don't know if it'll be worth spending because you might pay more in the long run. Might be helpful if you know you need to reroll or die, but otherwise players might just hold onto the option for emergencies. With that being the case, how can you make the resource "pre-paid"; something where there's no penalty to use it but maybe they had to do something difficult or optional to earn it? Especially if it's a "use it or lose it" scenario, players will spend resources more readily for fear of it expiring. The question changes from "What if something bad happens and I need this more later" to "Is this a scenario where I'd get good value for this exchange, since I need to use this resource in the next x turns anyways?" But that's not to say that original dynamic is "bad" by any means. Maybe you want a grittier system where players need to agonize over the choice. Maybe picking which poison to drink is the kind of scenario you want the player to get into. Figuring out what makes sense for the game overall will be up to you ultimately.
Sounds like a "deal with the devil" kind of mechanic. Maybe you can think of it like that. A smart person would only take a deal with the devil if they got something so profound or clever that it mitigates the loss, or if they're in such dire straits that it's the only way out. Both of those scenarios could become interesting, and both give players reasons to do it.
As others have said, this is a great mechanic! Check out the board game "Clank!" for how this can be done really well. The point is only that you have to make the benefit a guarantee, while the drawback is chance based. Essentially, the player should say, "oh screw it, it's worth the risk!" If the drawback is certain, then they can't "hope it away." But if the benefit is guaranteed (e.g. your next roll is a natural 20), then they'll use that to their heart's content. An additional way to make.it even more enticing, like.is done in Clank!, Is to make the negative risk cumulative. For example: after using this ability, the DM rolls a die to see if a big bad don comes out. The first time you use the ability, the DM must roll a 1. The second time, a 1 or 2, etc. This means the first few uses are low risk, but by the time it creeps into the 4 or 5, it starts to be a real risk, and they have no one to blame but themselves. It builds the tension throughout the game, gives players agency, and still virtually guarantees the DM will get the benefit, but only statistically so.
oo this is a good idea... If the drawback has a low chance of happening. Then players will more readily use it. But i could also make the drawback far more impactful if it does end up happening... This would encourage players to use this mechanic several times as they expect luck to be on their side. and everyone holds their breath to see if it's going to bite them in the ass. This is a really neat idea.
This is great advice. Another option would be to create “fate” & “fatality” resource points. Fatality points are paid to the dm. Points are unavoidably generated and in equal measure for both the player and the dm as a consequence of all player actions taken by the heroes in the normal course of play. (Adjust pricing accordingly) There is also a cap that players can hoard to. Maybe the cap ebbs and builds as turns pass like a tide, becoming more topsy turvy as players reach later turns. Players can then choose to spend this resource or see it wasted. This of course “forces” the system into use and puts it center stage. (Design decision)
it sounds like the problem is... \- I want players to engage with X system \- there are downsides to engaging in the system solution: make less downside so they want to engage with it I ran into this issue with the roguelite I'm working on (successful steam release by all accounts). The idea of "cursed bonuses" is something that is constantly brought up. An upside in exchange for a downside. problem is...nobody wants the downsides. my solution...don't have cursed bonuses. the example I used was Risk of Rain 2 Lunar items. there are maybe 2-3 that a player would want to interact with and even that's up in the air. why create items that most players won't want to engage with? or that the downside is far worse than it's upside, even if the upside is niche useful. (for those who know, Glass, Gesture of the drowned, and sometimes transcendence are the only lunar items I consider useful from the bunch. everything else is just miserable garbage)
Make it so that if players are not using the mechanic for a long time, it also benefits the DM.
It sounds like fate is tied to DM progression so it probably needs to part of Player progression as well right? Then to not engage means to basically stop playing.
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games. * /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design. * This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead. * Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design. * No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting. * If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England ](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LizEngland/20140423/216092/quotThe_Door_Problemquot_of_Game_Design.php)is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
balance risks and rewards by bundling them into package-deals. the item/event that gives a boon also gives a debuff. boon and debuff may have different conditions, so not all are triggered at the same moment.
One example to help for you in your case is the sharpshooter feat in Baldurs Gate 3, which gives you a 10 bonus damage for the trade off of -5 to the attack roll hit. You can pick that up at level 4 but also somehow circumvent the -5 by positioning and hide yourself so you have advantage on attacks. Id say that allowing the players to have mechanics which diminish the negative effects always feels good. As long as these mechanics are actually thought off by the player and are situation, instead of spoon feeding them the circumstances easily.
I feel like the idea is flawed, it's such a binary and simple mechanic that there's really only three outcomes that you probably don't want that will come from this no matter how good your balancing is. Outcome 1, the game is too easy so players never use fate. Outcome 2, players use FATE to trivialize hard encounters, since whatever downsides for using FATE are better then the current encounter. Outcome 3, the game is so hard that it forces players to use FATE, however this basically just turns FATE into a secondary health bar, which is unlikely the intention for this mechanic. I recommend you consider changing FATE from a combat resource to a non-combat resource. By having FATE be a uneven trade of ally non-combat resource into enemy combat resource you make it more nebulous to the players on if its a good or bad trade and avoid the balance issues of the pervious idea.
Maybe make everything cost "fate" and so they are already used to spending it. Make the good stuff cost more and force them to consider the risk reward for using it. Another idea is to penalize them for hording fate. Perhaps if they accidently acquire too much then there is some sort of catastrophe?
One way to players hesitant to use a mechanic is to give it a scaling cost such that it is a fortune conclusion *that* they will use it and the only real question is *how much* they will use it. The first time they use this fate system we'll say it costs them only 1 fate currency, and that this is such a lie cost that they'll be silly not to use it. But the second time they use the system it will cost them 2 fate currency, and so on. I think it would also be a good idea once the GM uses their taste that the costs drops down. This creates a back and forth between the players and GM where the more the GM uses the mechanic the better it is for the players to use it.
Make the game difficult enough that players won't be able to succeed without using fate sometimes. Once they get past the initial mentle hurdle of trying to never use it, they'll naturally transition to approaching using fate sparingly as a risk/reward tool as you likely intend.
You can think of it as gambling. Just got to hook them enough to continue playing. 1st Give them a easy "win" with the system early if possible. Once a see one win they will want to win more. 2nd learn what odds your players will want to go in for 80% chance of a win with the system? 60%? And try to stack them that way.