TBM: Ep 9 script

In an attempt to transition out of hiatus, I will be posting the scripts of my Thinking Beyond Mechanisms segment. I don't plan to edit them, so there may be some differences between the audio and written versions. Take the audio as the correct version.

Loss Gates

Welcome to Thinking Beyond Mechanisms, an in depth look at some of the other aspects of game design, the segment that looks at some of the theory of board game design that goes beyond what typically gets covered when we learn how to design games. My name is Sarah Shipp and today I want to talk about a specific time when restricting player agency leads to interesting game experiences. This is a continuation of the last episode, where I introduced the idea of gates, which are times in games where players are forced to act without choice. 

There is another type of gate that interests me. When gates are used to make players face loss aversion in a thematic way. This type of gate forces players to confront loss. Perhaps the most well known example of this is in the video game Portal. Players are given a weighted companion cube and told to take care of it, only to be told to incinerate it at the end of the level. The emotional attachment comes from loss aversion via the endowment effect but the moment is a gate in the game because you cannot advance until you surrender the cube. In this way, the game forces the emotional moment on the players. You can read more about loss aversion in general and this example specifically in Geoff Engelstein’s book, Achievement ReLocked.

The most famous example of this sort of gate in board games occurs in Pandemic Legacy Season 1, where the forced loss has a mechanical impact on the game. Asking players to give up something that is both emotional and has mechanical utility is a risky design choice, especially in a board game. If a player plays the game more than once or knows about the moment ahead of time, the player will not experience the same emotional impact and may take steps to mitigate the mechanical impact. Players may also feel that the moment of emotion is unearned due to the lack of choice. This type of gate requires careful playtesting to ensure that it fits with the overall game experience. 

I have a few additional observations about this type of gate. Repeating the loss will dilute the emotional impact and could increase player frustration due to lack of player control of game progression. Adding some agency around when the loss occurs can also dilute the emotional impact but will likely decrease player frustration. Recall that forced-actions are a type of gate defined by actions that lack choice but nevertheless have some agency around when they occur. Players that feel they have agency to mitigate or control loss will be less frustrated but as a result will feel the loss less acutely. Additionally, as players near the end game, they may also feel the loss less as the desire to win overtakes loss aversion. 

Lastly, loss aversion gates must result in real loss to be at all impactful. There is a moment in the video game Death Stranding where players are asked to perform an action similar to the incineration of the companion cube in Portal except the stakes are much higher. Like in Portal, players cannot progress until the action is performed. However, performing the action does not result in real loss. While this is for the best in the overall story of the game, the moment of the gate itself feels cheap, similar to a jump scare early in a horror movie. Players are left to wonder why the moment exists at all if the decision to proceed through the gate does not have the consequence that was promised. 

The game could have made the gate hinge around the decision the character ultimately makes, but which is instead relegated to a cut scene. Instead the action the player takes is not the action the character takes, which results in the player feeling as though the game developers are toying with the player’s emotions for no reason. If the gate required the player to make the same action as the character, the emotion would not be as strong in the moment, but players would feel less cheated afterward. 

Moments of non-choice are useful design tools to propel a game forward. They can provide surprises, strategy frameworks, temporary goals, and memorable moments. Gates can also be  emotional tools when used well. Carefully curated moments of forced loss can elevate a game thematically and emotionally. All gates are tricky design choices, but especially gates that evoke loss aversion, so proceed with caution. 

For more ways of thinking beyond mechanisms, you can visit my blog at shipp board games dot blog spot dot com or catch future episodes of thinking beyond mechanisms on ludology.