I'm surprised that you didn't mention the most interesting (to me) design decision in the game: waiting in real-time between actions you take in-game. It's not superficially related to player agency in terms of the game's narrative resolution, but the choice of how long to sit in the dark in silence between the acts of the game struck me as particularly significant when I played it. Some of those decisions were based on the amount of time that I had budgeted to play the game, sure, but there's something sort of alchemical that happened with my experience of the game while sitting doing nothing as the timer ticked down. It really felt like I was one of the skeletons waiting for the tomb to be reopened
I wanted to, but I also try to keep each post focused on one tiny part of a game or topic. Thematically, sitting in the silent dark until someone says, "Arise and protect the tomb, skeletal guardians!" is such a great idea.
I think that by playing this as a journaling game, you take the lack of agency in stride. So many journaling games out there use dice or cards for prompt selection, but these elements of randomness have no influence on the actual outcome of the game. Even with journaling games as complex as a Wretched & Alone game, with dice, cards, and a jenga tower, none of that actually gives an opportunity for a meaningful choice to be made by the player.
If you had been playing this with more players, I imagine the dearth of decisions would have been more readily apparent.
I think that's a fair point. The game is recommended for "one to six players with one or more hours to spend together." As a quick solo play, it was a fun worldbuilding activity.
If it were a much longer, multiplayer game, it would have been a very different experience. Although I would still maintain the final impression depends on the type(s) of fun that the players were seeking.
Absolutely agree. If players are expecting a story-telling experience, you’re golden. If they are expecting a tactical war game of tomb defense as animated skeletons, they might be disappointed.
I find that more players increases the enjoyment because you are collaborating and building off each other. Each player is an element of randomness, changing the narrative in ways you don't anticipate.
I would also argue that "meaningful choice" can occur at many scales, including "the outcome is failure, envision the specifics of that failure." I actually prefer that, for the same reason designing with constraints often leads to better work: a focused creative space challenges you explore more deeply, rather than broadly.
You might find my game from 2019 an interesting one in a similar vein. A Cool and Lonely Courage starts at the end. You are women spies captured by the Nazis in WW2 France. The game examines your life and relationships leading up to that point. It is a narrative game, but uses playing cards to inform the emotional content of scenes which you recall.
>>> Yet it also has the almost infinite player agency at a micro level as you get to decide how to answer the questions, how to build the tomb, and what features it will have.
I'm not sure you're right here. Agency isn't about decisions, it's about meaningful decisions. Your decisions on decorating the tomb aren't changing the flow of the game, they only change subsequent descriptions. I don't think this can be called "agency"
I'm surprised that you didn't mention the most interesting (to me) design decision in the game: waiting in real-time between actions you take in-game. It's not superficially related to player agency in terms of the game's narrative resolution, but the choice of how long to sit in the dark in silence between the acts of the game struck me as particularly significant when I played it. Some of those decisions were based on the amount of time that I had budgeted to play the game, sure, but there's something sort of alchemical that happened with my experience of the game while sitting doing nothing as the timer ticked down. It really felt like I was one of the skeletons waiting for the tomb to be reopened
I wanted to, but I also try to keep each post focused on one tiny part of a game or topic. Thematically, sitting in the silent dark until someone says, "Arise and protect the tomb, skeletal guardians!" is such a great idea.
Might fit in nicely with the topics covered here: https://www.skeletoncodemachine.com/p/theres-a-wasp-crawling-on-your-arm
I think that by playing this as a journaling game, you take the lack of agency in stride. So many journaling games out there use dice or cards for prompt selection, but these elements of randomness have no influence on the actual outcome of the game. Even with journaling games as complex as a Wretched & Alone game, with dice, cards, and a jenga tower, none of that actually gives an opportunity for a meaningful choice to be made by the player.
If you had been playing this with more players, I imagine the dearth of decisions would have been more readily apparent.
I think that's a fair point. The game is recommended for "one to six players with one or more hours to spend together." As a quick solo play, it was a fun worldbuilding activity.
If it were a much longer, multiplayer game, it would have been a very different experience. Although I would still maintain the final impression depends on the type(s) of fun that the players were seeking.
Absolutely agree. If players are expecting a story-telling experience, you’re golden. If they are expecting a tactical war game of tomb defense as animated skeletons, they might be disappointed.
Now I want a tactical war game of tomb defense as animated skeletons.
I find that more players increases the enjoyment because you are collaborating and building off each other. Each player is an element of randomness, changing the narrative in ways you don't anticipate.
I would also argue that "meaningful choice" can occur at many scales, including "the outcome is failure, envision the specifics of that failure." I actually prefer that, for the same reason designing with constraints often leads to better work: a focused creative space challenges you explore more deeply, rather than broadly.
You might find my game from 2019 an interesting one in a similar vein. A Cool and Lonely Courage starts at the end. You are women spies captured by the Nazis in WW2 France. The game examines your life and relationships leading up to that point. It is a narrative game, but uses playing cards to inform the emotional content of scenes which you recall.
Interesting! I'll check that out!
>>> Yet it also has the almost infinite player agency at a micro level as you get to decide how to answer the questions, how to build the tomb, and what features it will have.
I'm not sure you're right here. Agency isn't about decisions, it's about meaningful decisions. Your decisions on decorating the tomb aren't changing the flow of the game, they only change subsequent descriptions. I don't think this can be called "agency"
I think you have a valid point, especially when considering how much "Influence" decisions have when using the CCI player agency model.
Can you link me to the model? I assume it was featured in your previous articles but substack is painful to search in :/
Yeah, Substack search is so bad I usually try to just use Google! :)
Here is the link to the player agency models: https://www.skeletoncodemachine.com/p/what-does-it-mean-to-give-players
There's a related second part as well: https://www.skeletoncodemachine.com/p/carta-srd