What's wrong with current BBGs?

[Gads]

Most games that I have ever played have had manuals. Many have also had tutorials. Some have had strategy guides, as well. Others have had example turn reports, or overviews, or guided tours.

All the same, really. The idea is to explain how to play the game. There are some games which encourage the role of a live mentor - that's just another verion of a manual or tutorial

Going back to my very first posting on page # 1 of this thread, I will say it, again. My own experience to date with browser based games has been that, by and large, they are boring. Whatever else may be said about tutorials to their benefit, tutorials have acquired a well-deserved reputation for being boring.

I know you are not saying that you have played all of them or that you know your experience is universal, but to stress the point, it is obvious that there are thousand, maybe tens of thousands of players who enjoy browser-based games.

The more intuitive that a game is, the less that the game in question needs a tutorial. I think that that much is axiomatic. Of various browser based games that I have tried, to date, I just don't think that a tutorial - or even a better tutorial for those that already had one, would have been sufficient to bridge the gap, in order to transition the game from being boring to being exciting and engaging and addicting.

I am confused. Are we talking about the fact that a game is browser-based, or that it is simplistic (boring) or that its documentation is hard to understand. Those latter two, while not mutually exclusive, do not always go together, and neither is a concomitant of being in a browser.

The ideal, I believe is that a game should be "easy to learn, hard to master."

Most of the PBM games including Rimworlds -1986 and (I suspect) all of the ones you remember fondly, were not easy to learn because they required either looking up or memorizing a bunch of codes. Good ones had a set pattern for the codes so you didn't have to remember the format for each one as well. Some PBMs also had return sheets that were filled with codes, that had to be mentally translated before they were understood.

But yet we loved 'em - why? because they challenged us. They made us feel good when we succeeded and made us try harder when we failed. There were BBS's filled with the equivalent of tutorials - some players took on the role of being tutorials and were worth their weight in gold to the GM, whether they knew it or not.

Programmers are a lot like engineers, in that as they program their respective games, they each acquire a hefty degree of familiarity with them. When a game manual or a set of rules are then crafted by those very same individuals, things tend to invariably get taken for granted.

Invariably??? I beg your pardon??? I am a programmer. The rulebook for RW-1986 was detailed, indexed, and updated constantly. (Much of the book was not needful to learn how to give orders, it was back stories, strategy choices, lookup tables, reference works and indexes.) I know that BSE was presented in much the same way and I assume the rest of ABM's games were, too. On the other hand, I can agree that the situation you describe exists - has existed since the earliest days of gaming, and will continue to exist forever. It is simply not universal.

The completely uninitiated approach the very same games with very different perspectives form those who programmed them. What is obvious or logical to the programmer can be confusing - or even invisible - to the player new to the game.

You are dead right. But again you paint all programmers with the same brush. Not every member of any profession acts in lockstep with every other member. Nor is every programmer limited to only thinking in terms of code. I have earned my living as a technical writer -- who are paid decent bucks to explain how to handle software far more complicated than any game.

Since I play in Far Horizons: The Awakening, currently, I will use that game as an example to help illustrate my point. I downloaded the latest version of the game manual from the game moderator's website again, earlier this evening. The rules in question are the seventh edition of the rules for Far Horizons. Yet, they are highly deficient. Why? Because, things that I need to do are not always obvious.

Here's where I get confused. Are you criticizing FH because its rulebook is not well written, or because it is played in a browser? You are talking about a game that was written years ago, in a language (Ansi C) known for efficiency and control not its ability to deal with strings (words). It is filled with codes a la the 80's and 90's, and so far Ram has yet to upgrade its input/output beyond that era, even though the website is attractively laid out and shows great promise of becoming a good interface.

If a game is incapable of making me want to read the rules, after I start playing, then what are the chances that I am the only one who will feel that way?

Over a decade into the Twenty-First Century, do I want to become a rulebook archaeologist, and try to sift through the bits and pieces covered by a mountain of text, just in order to perform basic, rudimentary tasks? It certainly isn't going to make my Top Ten list of things that I most look forward to doing.

I couldn't agree with you more. Eliminating this experience, to me, is the promise of computer-interface gaming. When Ram gets an interface in place that is easy to understand, offers only the options (in understandable terms) that are available at that moment and generally makes it impossible to enter an order that will fail, then FH can start achieving its full potential. (I note that the interface doesn't have to be browser-based, it can be a client program running on the player's computer and utilizing the web merely as a way of communicating with the game server.)

The game moderator won't have to pressure me or brow beat me or remind me to read the game manual or the rulebook. Rather, I will have incentive on my own to tackle what I call "the heavy reading."

The incentive that has existed since Starweb was being run on punch cards is wanting to play the best game you can. That is not changed by the game being available on the web. It is a function of how much the game (as opposed to the interface) challenges you.

Boring Browser Based format + Boring Tutorial = More Boredom

That's the simple math of it, to me.

Sure. but the operative word there is boring, not manual or game. Let me rewrite it as:

Exciting game + well designed interface + well written and easily used documentation available on line or for download = a game you'll play forever.

I agree with you 100% JonO

---

Grim, the fact that you cited the poorly-written rules of Far Horizons shows that this is not about whether the game is played in a browser or a more traditional PBM format. The FH rules *are* terrible, but with the right rules the game mechanics are fairly simple and straightforward. I have half a mind to write up a field guide to FH myself.

Similarly, many BBGs are boring, but many are not. I give you the examples of Farmville and Mafia Wars (on facebook) as examples of *very* simple repetitive games that have a stunning grip on their players. (Earning their publishing companies millions of dollars, incidentally.)

I'm not saying PBM should look to Farmville as the way of the future. Rather, PBM should put it's vast experience at text-based and simple-graphic storytelling to use and leapfrog past Farmville. In a big way.

If PBM want to convert successfully to the on-line media I think it can do far worse than look to games like Farmville or Mafia Wars. Yes we all agree they are repetitive, shallow and maybe even boring however they have got right far more than any PBM todate regarding success online. What is so wrong with getting a simple basic PBM game working online successfully and using it's model and platform as a base to increase depth and complexity?