Re: long-term fun

From: David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>

Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Enno Rehling <rehling@usa.net> writes:
> How do you achieve long-term playability in a strategic pbem? I'm
> talking about more than just a hundred or two hundred turns.

I think you basically can't, for exactly the reasons that you describe.
Either players can't accomplish anything, or the ones who play "well"
will be too much stronger than their rivals and than new entrants.  You
can make the game become boring for those elder players, so that they
drop out, and the game might continue, but that's not really the same
thing as achieving long-term playability for the same players.

The only games that I've seen last as long as you like revolve primarily
around things other than strategy.  Roleplaying is one such element.
It's also possible to keep players involved with something that I don't
really know how to name: it's the feeling of *building* something.  If
you can get players attached to their positions, because they feel that
they have built something that didn't exist when they started, then they
can become attached to maintaining and continuing that program, even
without (1) any real strategic goals or challenges; (2) any personal
identification with characters or units in the game, as "roleplaying"
would imply.

Of course, you can also produce a game that is essentially a solitaire
game.  Monster Island is a decent example of this, especially in the
early years of that game (my impression is that as it evolved, organized
team play became more significant).  This eliminates a lot of the
problems that you mention.  But I'm not sure that I would call a
solitaire game "strategic", either.

Despite believing that it can't really be done, I still think about
giving it a try one of these days.

David desJardins

References

long-term fun
"Enno Rehling" <rehling@usa.net>
Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

long-term fun
"Enno Rehling" <rehling@usa.net>
Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000