Exploring the concept of antagonistic game design and the (implied) author as player. Games that include frustration as a core element and why people play them.
All things are possible through spite. But seriously, there are some interesting studies on anti-reward prediction error neurons and dopamine release that I bet factor into this kind of game. https://neurosciencenews.com/dopamine-dissapointment-23506/ is a quick article about this. Thanks for pointing this game out. I look forward (with a little leftover college anxiety, because yes, nightmares forever) to giving this game a try.
(Also, I just found out about antagonistic design too, but in the video game world. I hadn't considered that it could be converted to table top. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Bdp2hMX2OGc)
It's such a fascinating game to me because I had never heard of antagonistic game design before. This is one of those games that is so thought-provoking that it will stay with me for a very long time. Such an unexpected treasure of a game!
I hadn’t heard that term either and I almost went down the rabbit hole with it but it does describe some games that I’ve seen. I def can see you playing around with the concept but I would def warn the player. 😆😆
“This should be familiar to anyone who has played a TTRPG where the GM is very much a player in the game.” At first, I thought there was a comma missing after “TTRPG,” but there is not: in some games (in theory, at least), the GM is a referee or game facilitator, but in others, she plays the world and all the NPCs in it. If a game has one person referee and play the forces opposing the other players, that might be counted antagonistic game design (even without the designer as GM): who guards the guards themselves?
Splitting the GM roles to be fair to the “adventurers” and the “monsters” is uncommon in RPGs, isn’t it? It could be reframed as refereed asymmetrical PvP, and GMless PvP is possible. I guess we see both in wargames. The mainstream of RPG design is mostly antagonistic?
“The game manifests ‘the authors’ intention to tease and frustrate the players.’” Hmm … One take on this would be that the player is to imagine that she is engaged in a duel with a game designer: the player makes believe that there is a second player attempting to frustrate her at every turn. As we might make believe that /the orcs are trying to kill us/ — scare quote that to taste. But just as there are no orcs …
Another take is that there is a second game or metagame — the designer’s move is to attempt to design a solo game the player cannot beat, and the player’s move is to attempt to beat it. Here the designer has no moves in the solo game — of course — only in the metagame of game design as duel with the player community. Unless this is an ongoing dialogue — with ever more fiendish games/puzzles offered by the thwarted designer — this seems a bit thin. I don’t mean we shouldn’t consider it adversarial game design: it is the designer-as-player that I am wondering about.
This game really got me thinking, as I had never heard of antagonistic game design before. I recommend reading the paper I referenced if you get a chance. They (obviously) go into this in far more detail than I ever could.
Just had a *quick* read through it. I seem to be in the right general area, but I remain unpersuaded. There seems to be some equivocation between actual author — as when the author GMs her own game — and implied author, who if I read it correctly is a fictional character. If I have to punch the player to my right before making each of my moves, don’t I resent the actual author as a sadist and not some fictional character?
When anyone else says "The [creator] of this game hates you," they are not referring to antagonistic mechanics, they are referring to embedded cultural content that is antagonistic of the culture of the audience.
Use & Regret, insofar as the content highlighted in the article, contains no material that would be considered offensive or provocative to the broader culture. Its mechanics are deliberately tedious (busy work), overcomplicated (purposeless), and emotionally provocative to the individual player (i.e. cross out your favorite label).
It is art, and a bit of a psychological tool. Anyone that would play this game, following the rules in good faith, is going to learn just how tolerant one is of bureaucratic abusiveness, and of one's proclivity to Stockholm syndrome. The author is right to offer apology so readily.
The game design technology here is a stark warning of "don't do this."
For everyone else, choosing not to buy products from "The [creator] of this game hates you," generally has worked for those individuals. Its difficult to say that being deliberately culturally provocative has succeeded as a business strategy.
To be clear, I certainly don't think the authors of "antagonistic design" games literally hate the players. 😅 Use & Regret is absolutely art, and possibly one of my favorite indie games of this year.
There's a whole culture around this with Super Mario Maker "troll levels," which themselves seem descended from "Kaizo" hacks of Super Mario World (extremely difficult levels with unfair difficulty). There's a pretty good video essay on it here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=18WvuBg91gk
But there are different sorts of adversarial game design, and the tone in Mario Maker troll levels seems to be playful and unserious. The structure is deeply rooted in comedy, setting up the player's expectations and then subverting them. Like the developer is trying to prank the player over and over. The best troll levels invite the players to laugh at themselves, or at the absurd things the developers have made, while also letting those players have a sense of accomplishment when they figure things out (or see a particular troll coming and avoid it). Unfortunately it seems to be against Nintendo's design philosophy, so they've been taking troll levels down from their servers 😔
I think Tower of Heaven also plays with the concept of adversarial design, but in a way that I, as someone who doesn't tend to like it as a player, was still able to enjoy.
I think the main things that appeal to me about adversarial design are the potential for pranking someone in a way that delights them, and the potential for serious games (putting the players in impossible situations to build empathy for the people whom our current systems put into impossible situations irl).
Oh, nice. I love a good video essay. Added that to my Watch Later!
That's a whole subculture I didn't know about. Really interesting. Also, I agree that adversarial design can be more than "it's hard" or "this is frustrating". In the best cases it is art that changes the viewer/participant.
Wow use & regret is so alien in design to me and yet I'm completely fascinated, what a weird yet cool little game! Antagonistic game design isn't something I've consciously considered, but have enjoyed such games in the past - the Stanley parable was a great example, another even more overt one was Level Devil (which I was so awful at I had to watch a friend play lol) but this is the first in the ttrpg format I've seen, very cool
Same! Not my usual sort of game, and I can't explain how surprised (delighted!) I was when I started to play. Not because the game was "fun" in the traditional sense, but it challenged all the usual conventions of game design and the classic "8 Kinds of Fun" type stuff.
All things are possible through spite. But seriously, there are some interesting studies on anti-reward prediction error neurons and dopamine release that I bet factor into this kind of game. https://neurosciencenews.com/dopamine-dissapointment-23506/ is a quick article about this. Thanks for pointing this game out. I look forward (with a little leftover college anxiety, because yes, nightmares forever) to giving this game a try.
(Also, I just found out about antagonistic design too, but in the video game world. I hadn't considered that it could be converted to table top. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Bdp2hMX2OGc)
Oooh, I'll check out that article. Thanks!
And yeah, the game is definitely worth trying. I tried to avoid spoilers as much as possible.
And I appreciate you for it!
What an interesting concept. That kind of game would not be for me though. Too triggering! lol 😆
Hah! I get it!
It's such a fascinating game to me because I had never heard of antagonistic game design before. This is one of those games that is so thought-provoking that it will stay with me for a very long time. Such an unexpected treasure of a game!
I hadn’t heard that term either and I almost went down the rabbit hole with it but it does describe some games that I’ve seen. I def can see you playing around with the concept but I would def warn the player. 😆😆
“This should be familiar to anyone who has played a TTRPG where the GM is very much a player in the game.” At first, I thought there was a comma missing after “TTRPG,” but there is not: in some games (in theory, at least), the GM is a referee or game facilitator, but in others, she plays the world and all the NPCs in it. If a game has one person referee and play the forces opposing the other players, that might be counted antagonistic game design (even without the designer as GM): who guards the guards themselves?
Splitting the GM roles to be fair to the “adventurers” and the “monsters” is uncommon in RPGs, isn’t it? It could be reframed as refereed asymmetrical PvP, and GMless PvP is possible. I guess we see both in wargames. The mainstream of RPG design is mostly antagonistic?
“The game manifests ‘the authors’ intention to tease and frustrate the players.’” Hmm … One take on this would be that the player is to imagine that she is engaged in a duel with a game designer: the player makes believe that there is a second player attempting to frustrate her at every turn. As we might make believe that /the orcs are trying to kill us/ — scare quote that to taste. But just as there are no orcs …
Another take is that there is a second game or metagame — the designer’s move is to attempt to design a solo game the player cannot beat, and the player’s move is to attempt to beat it. Here the designer has no moves in the solo game — of course — only in the metagame of game design as duel with the player community. Unless this is an ongoing dialogue — with ever more fiendish games/puzzles offered by the thwarted designer — this seems a bit thin. I don’t mean we shouldn’t consider it adversarial game design: it is the designer-as-player that I am wondering about.
Stimulating!
All interesting thoughts!
This game really got me thinking, as I had never heard of antagonistic game design before. I recommend reading the paper I referenced if you get a chance. They (obviously) go into this in far more detail than I ever could.
Thanks!
Just had a *quick* read through it. I seem to be in the right general area, but I remain unpersuaded. There seems to be some equivocation between actual author — as when the author GMs her own game — and implied author, who if I read it correctly is a fictional character. If I have to punch the player to my right before making each of my moves, don’t I resent the actual author as a sadist and not some fictional character?
When anyone else says "The [creator] of this game hates you," they are not referring to antagonistic mechanics, they are referring to embedded cultural content that is antagonistic of the culture of the audience.
Use & Regret, insofar as the content highlighted in the article, contains no material that would be considered offensive or provocative to the broader culture. Its mechanics are deliberately tedious (busy work), overcomplicated (purposeless), and emotionally provocative to the individual player (i.e. cross out your favorite label).
It is art, and a bit of a psychological tool. Anyone that would play this game, following the rules in good faith, is going to learn just how tolerant one is of bureaucratic abusiveness, and of one's proclivity to Stockholm syndrome. The author is right to offer apology so readily.
The game design technology here is a stark warning of "don't do this."
For everyone else, choosing not to buy products from "The [creator] of this game hates you," generally has worked for those individuals. Its difficult to say that being deliberately culturally provocative has succeeded as a business strategy.
To be clear, I certainly don't think the authors of "antagonistic design" games literally hate the players. 😅 Use & Regret is absolutely art, and possibly one of my favorite indie games of this year.
Thanks for the comment!
There's a whole culture around this with Super Mario Maker "troll levels," which themselves seem descended from "Kaizo" hacks of Super Mario World (extremely difficult levels with unfair difficulty). There's a pretty good video essay on it here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=18WvuBg91gk
But there are different sorts of adversarial game design, and the tone in Mario Maker troll levels seems to be playful and unserious. The structure is deeply rooted in comedy, setting up the player's expectations and then subverting them. Like the developer is trying to prank the player over and over. The best troll levels invite the players to laugh at themselves, or at the absurd things the developers have made, while also letting those players have a sense of accomplishment when they figure things out (or see a particular troll coming and avoid it). Unfortunately it seems to be against Nintendo's design philosophy, so they've been taking troll levels down from their servers 😔
I think Tower of Heaven also plays with the concept of adversarial design, but in a way that I, as someone who doesn't tend to like it as a player, was still able to enjoy.
I think the main things that appeal to me about adversarial design are the potential for pranking someone in a way that delights them, and the potential for serious games (putting the players in impossible situations to build empathy for the people whom our current systems put into impossible situations irl).
Oh, nice. I love a good video essay. Added that to my Watch Later!
That's a whole subculture I didn't know about. Really interesting. Also, I agree that adversarial design can be more than "it's hard" or "this is frustrating". In the best cases it is art that changes the viewer/participant.
Wow use & regret is so alien in design to me and yet I'm completely fascinated, what a weird yet cool little game! Antagonistic game design isn't something I've consciously considered, but have enjoyed such games in the past - the Stanley parable was a great example, another even more overt one was Level Devil (which I was so awful at I had to watch a friend play lol) but this is the first in the ttrpg format I've seen, very cool
Same! Not my usual sort of game, and I can't explain how surprised (delighted!) I was when I started to play. Not because the game was "fun" in the traditional sense, but it challenged all the usual conventions of game design and the classic "8 Kinds of Fun" type stuff.
It's definitely rare to be surprised by like that! I love genre breaking design, going to have to experience it for myself