Looking for Opinions on Combat Redundancy

[Eiwynn]

Part of the issue here is a lack of understanding mechanics and the (in)ability to execute a mechanical structure when writing/developing a game.

CoG terms it a four-point trap. Here is a concise definition of a four-point trap:

@JimD

The Four Point Trap is when you set up all choices to have 4 options, each one aligned with a single stat. A player knows the only way to succeed is to pick the option that reads most like their highest stat.

There is also what CoG calla the Trouble:

@jasonstevanhill

If you’ve been using Combat the whole game, and you’ve increased Combat to (say) 60, and you’ve been neglecting your other stats, then you decide that being Stealthy is the better bet for this choice. But because the author wants there to be a “challenge,” the difficulty at this point in the game is something like a 55, meaning…you’ve had to specialize in a skill in order to be high enough to pass the test at this point. The player learns to just pick their best skill (the 4PT), and that’s the Trouble.

Where GoG’s model breaks down in understanding is that many authors/developers think to counter these issues that stats need to be immediately balanced out at the time they are utilized. What one hand gives, the other must take away right away or you get caught in the Trouble or the four-point trap.

Another way of looking at this is that the mechanical structure of your game is more like plumbing it has faucets, that add to stats, sinks that pool stats together, often for checks, and drains to subtract those stats.

Here I’m going to quote myself:

@Eiwynn

The positives and negatives consequences of a choice should be balanced but by no means does that mean an increase means an immediate decrease.

Here is where the answer to @Scribblesome’s question comes into place:

@JimD

[M]ix up options with varied results. If Combat is super high, maybe you succeed in the stat check (shoot your foe) but your foe is now unable to tell you how to diffuse the bomb.

and my words once more:

@Eiwynn

This is a good example of balancing higher levels of stat attainment with consequences - especially consequences of specializing too much…

As a developer (my opinion) it is important to both reward those who chose to specialize as well as show them there are boundaries where specialization limits them as well. Just as the inverse is correct for those Generalists - show them there are boundaries that limit success but rewards that enable their success.

If you always balance out (or zero out) stat increases/decreases then you invariably end up with the player ending up with stats in the middle. By varying your results and thus mixing your options up, even if they seem the same, you’ll allow people to play a specialized game or play a generalized game - however, they wish.