|
The issue is that the rules have little to nothing to do with this behaviour as it is a result of group dynamics. Someone will always take a leadership role in any co-operative endeavour, regardless of the rules involved. It is how most co-habitative communities of social animals behave. If you want the players to act more "independently" i.e. engage in action that may conflict with the actions of other, then you need to give them some reason to do so. This generally means introducing a competitive element as well. If you want people to not act as a cohesive group of people then you need to introduce elements that incetivise the players to act against the group as well. surmasampo fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Aug 16, 2015 |
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Broken Loose posted:No, it's not. We have a huge BSG community here on SA if you want proof, with over a hundred reviewable playthroughs that prove that card-counting is not a vulnerability in the game. The only way I can conceive that you could come to that conclusion is if you're breaking the secrecy rules. No, I didn't ignore your post, I disagreed. Here is an example of how people will find ways to communicate information that isn't part of the game design: a card game called 500. Go watch some people who are experienced play that game. The players reveal the most important elements of what they have through the bidding system, which isn't part of the design it is just how people have created a subtext to communicate their hand to their partner. This information exchange method is so accurate that most hands are only played through for the first half then all the rest of the tricks are known as the order that cards are played also communicate more information. Would making each card play time limited help to reduce this, no, the bidding takes more time than it takes to play the hand. Time limiting actions just pushes up the barrier to entry for skilled play, it does little to negate mechanical decision making. Our regular board gaming group plays Hanabi about once a month in the rotation. This is a game that intentionally limits information exchange and once you understand the information exchange economy and metagame, you will find your group scores pretty consistently without any tabletalk and games flow pretty fast. Game rules can be designed to promote or dissuade particular social behaviours without the use of an incentive or penalty, everything else is just a problem that players will try to solve in order to be better at the game. If the objective is to get goal A and providing information B increases the chance or success but rule C says that I can only communicate via method C then using strategy D will allow then to transmit the core aspect of information B either by manipulating rule C or circumnavigating it. Rules that hinder the players ability to win are barriers to overcome not absolute delineations of behaviour. A co-operative game that expects it's players to not try and co-ordinate as a group (the issue in the OP) is bound to run into issues if there is no actual incentive to not co-operate and that means competitive elements. Any other rule that places an artificial limitation on communication will end up being overcome by skilled players seeking ways to be more efficient at communicating through the games mechanics. In RPG's, where social interaction is a core element the idea that you can eliminate coaching when people are engaging in a co-operative endeavour isn't going to survive actual play.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Wait, so you disagree with my statement that games can alter group communication dynamics.... by claiming that games can alter group communication dynamics, and producing examples of that? Rules and many other factors can influence how a group functions but does not change the nature of group dynamics. I provided examples of how limiting the methods of communication does not prevent information that is intended to be restricted from being communicated. The original post was about preventing helping other players in decision making and information sharing (I assume that is what is intended by the use of the word coaching) and am pretty sure I demonstrated my point in relation to that. Simply put, my point was that to increase the likelihood that players in a cooperative game act independently rather than collaboratively towards the goal, that competitive elements need to be implemented. Limiting rules just serve to funnel information and not prevent it so it just requires more skill to play the game effectively.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 03:24
|
|