Let's Study Games - Redemption Mechanics

[Haschel Cedricson]

Hello, and welcome to the first installment of Let's Study Games, a series that I hope to run monthly. The goal of this series is to look at various design choices that we have seen in our LSGs and determine the advantages and disadvantages they have for the players, the moderators, and the community as a whole. By necessity we will be looking at past games through a critical eye, but we do so in hopes of improving games in the future. There are no "wrong answers" in these threads, so don't be afraid to give an opinion that goes against the grain.

For our first thread, we are going to be looking at Redemption Mechanics. Over the course of MS history these have been implemented in a whole bunch of different ways, with varying degrees of success. Eventually we will look at each one of these in depth, but for now to start the discussion off I pose this question to the community:

What is the purpose of Redemption Mechanics? What do they add to the game? Does this answer change if you are a player, a moderator, or a spectator?

[Haschel Cedricson]

For me personally, the ideal use of a redemption mechanic is when somebody who went out early gets a chance to reflect on why they were booted and try again. In an environment where going home early means waiting at least two months to try again, it can increase engagement for those players. This is doubly so when newer players tend to be the ones who go home fast.

[Haschel Cedricson]

And finally, what is the alternative for new players who go home early? Gone are the days of there being a prejury forum in which eliminated players are forced to languish until the live reveal. We allow players who go home early to spectate now. In most instances, I would argue that spectating will be more valuable and more engaging for players than sitting on a Redemption Island for 5 rounds playing a halfhearted version of Survivor only to most likely not return anyway or to immediately go home again if they do.

This is a very good point.

I think your first paragraph is oversimplifying a bit, though. Dark Rey came very close to winning Barely Survivor. Both Star Sapphire and Abraham Lincoln had tangible impacts on Arkham City after returning at the merge, with the latter having a reasonable shot of winning the game if not for leaving at F5.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Silverclaw, can you speak a little bit as to the specifics of what your goals were as far as having redemption mechanics in the first place?

[Haschel Cedricson]

I also think it's worth mentioning the Survivormeets; two of which have had Redemption. I think it's incredibly important that live games have that element because people are spending actual time and money to travel to those events. Even if we accept the premise of returnees can't win, the benefits of continued participation 100% outweigh those concerns.

EDIT: Reverse the Curse also had a returnee.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Same question to you, Malkon; when you added a return twist into PvCvW, what were you hoping to gain from the mechanic?

[Haschel Cedricson]

I'll say what I was going for with the two returnee twists I designed.

Terra Incognito from Survivor Civilization was ripped off wholesale from Arkham City's Death Row. In the latter game, I as Clock King got my ass handed to me because I didn't know what to do anymore. Death Row served as a wakeup call and if it had not been for the worst Riddler ever I think I would have improved. I wanted to recreate that experience in a game that I knew was going to cast a number of new/nearly-new players.

The School of Friendship from Survivor: Equestria was done in service to the game's overall thesis of "Friendship Is Magic". Here returning to the game meant encouraging people to vote you back in, which led to ultimately a stronger landing for Pinkie Pie. The goal in the game design wasn't "How can we return a player to the game?" but "How can we have a mechanic where friendship is important?"

[Haschel Cedricson]

It seems to me that the general consensus is that if you are a moderator designing a game, you should only have a redemption mechanic if there is a very good, carefully-considered reason for it and not just because you think it will be fun.

That being said, if you DO add such a mechanic the consensus seems to be to limit it to pre-merge boots only and have the returnee come back during the merge.

Should the players know that Redemption is a possibility at the start of the game? Is it unfair if they do not, or is the possibility of Redemption something that should be in the back of the players' minds no matter what?

[Haschel Cedricson]

I would add fitness challenges from SotF.

[Haschel Cedricson]

At this point, returnees should be a mechanic, not a twist. As a twist it doesn't sound like they WORK. As a mechanic that you tell people is going to happen or perhaps might happen it's something players plan around so I think can better be valued by players.

I really like this distinction.

Assuming a game moderator wants this mechanic in their game, what is the best way to determine who comes back and how?

[Haschel Cedricson]

The Equestria mechanic had two parts to it: while living players ultimately voted on who got to return, the list of options for them was first winnowed by limiting it to the top three performers in a challenge. This was done to limit the number of first-time introductions necessary. The set-up for this game also included a travelling tribe in order to maximize pre-existing impressions.

I really liked this mechanic and Klick's praise for it makes me feel good. It did require the early part of the game to be structured around making the mechanic work, though.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I agree with Klick that no one is perfect but the nature of our FTC speeches and how we pitch ourselves is to put up a facade that we made all the right choices and should be the "obvious" winner. Seldom do you see people pointing out their flaws and will often even avoid questions where they are asked to point out their own flaws and that of their opponents.

I mean a lot of this is just effective advocacy. I don't see a reason that's a problem.

People avoiding questions often just comes down to the format we have to use, which is that people ask and answer multiple questions simultaneously.

The July Let's Study Games is going to be about Final Tribal Council, btw.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Here are the games I helped mod:

SotF: Snowy Owl eliminated at TC 12 (F10), returns at TC 17 (F4 -> F5), eliminated same TC
Equestria: Pinkie Pie eliminated at TC 4 (F19), returns at TC 5 (F18), eliminated from game TC 12 (F11)
Civilization: Washington and Hannibal both eliminated TC 4 (F18), both return at merge/TC 10 (F12), eliminated back-to-back in TCs 12/13. Willem is eliminated TC 5 (F16), does not return but does become a juror.

I started to do Barely Survivor but, uh, pass.