Murphy's Law as a gameplay element
by Macgiants · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 05/29/2005 (11:27 pm) · 31 replies
Hi everyone,
I've been working on a game design document in my spare time recently, mostly just for fun and to see if I can come up with something that I'd actually be happy with. What I've been writing up so far is mostly a team based FPS game with vehicles, weapons, etc. - Battlefield 1942 comes to mind, although I'm adding in some elements that will (hopefully) make it notably different.
One of the ideas is to add in an element of Murphy's Law to the gameplay - that is, if anything can go wrong, it will.
This means adding the ability for things to go wrong for the player(s) in the game. For example, in an FPS game, this could mean that when you jump into a vehicle it takes 15 seconds for it to actually start up. Or, when you fire a guided missle at someone, it misses, turns around, and homes in on you. Or that EMP mine that you dropped goes off randomly some time later, shutting down some of your teammates tanks that were defending your base. Just possible occurrences of things that could go wrong randomly, satisfying the first part of Murphy's Law, that anything can go wrong.
There's quite a bit more that I've been thinking about in regards to this concept, but I just wanted to get some feedback on this first part to see if this is a good idea to explore further - as in, could this make gameplay more interesting and more fun to play? Or is it just adding in another layer of complexity that will just make a game more frustrating for the player?
I've been working on a game design document in my spare time recently, mostly just for fun and to see if I can come up with something that I'd actually be happy with. What I've been writing up so far is mostly a team based FPS game with vehicles, weapons, etc. - Battlefield 1942 comes to mind, although I'm adding in some elements that will (hopefully) make it notably different.
One of the ideas is to add in an element of Murphy's Law to the gameplay - that is, if anything can go wrong, it will.
This means adding the ability for things to go wrong for the player(s) in the game. For example, in an FPS game, this could mean that when you jump into a vehicle it takes 15 seconds for it to actually start up. Or, when you fire a guided missle at someone, it misses, turns around, and homes in on you. Or that EMP mine that you dropped goes off randomly some time later, shutting down some of your teammates tanks that were defending your base. Just possible occurrences of things that could go wrong randomly, satisfying the first part of Murphy's Law, that anything can go wrong.
There's quite a bit more that I've been thinking about in regards to this concept, but I just wanted to get some feedback on this first part to see if this is a good idea to explore further - as in, could this make gameplay more interesting and more fun to play? Or is it just adding in another layer of complexity that will just make a game more frustrating for the player?
#2
"be consistent
give good feedback
design the interface to offer defined tasks
don't allow the player to make silly mistakes, and allow recovery from minor errors
permit easy reversal of actions
remember that the player is the one in control
don't strain the players short term memory"
That's about user interface in particular, but it's pretty general for the whole gameplay. Murphy's law would violate a lot of those things. So be careful with random stuff just going wrong with your game.
But I think if you made some aspects of the game off limits to murpy's law, and draw attention to it when the law is firing, you could add some hilarity and exitement to the game. You need that to make a game fun and interesting. Anything to make it different than the other FPS games.
05/29/2005 (11:59 pm)
Murphy's law is, maybe, about perceived complexity in our world. Good game design is also about hiding complexity from the user. Cribbing from my copy of Rollings and Adams on game design:"be consistent
give good feedback
design the interface to offer defined tasks
don't allow the player to make silly mistakes, and allow recovery from minor errors
permit easy reversal of actions
remember that the player is the one in control
don't strain the players short term memory"
That's about user interface in particular, but it's pretty general for the whole gameplay. Murphy's law would violate a lot of those things. So be careful with random stuff just going wrong with your game.
But I think if you made some aspects of the game off limits to murpy's law, and draw attention to it when the law is firing, you could add some hilarity and exitement to the game. You need that to make a game fun and interesting. Anything to make it different than the other FPS games.
#3
You know, from recent studies, it was founded that a person is 15 times more likely to get killed by a falling coconut than from shark attack? ;)
Have fun with it!
- Ronixus
05/30/2005 (11:28 am)
Awesome idea! My only suggestion would be to look into the instancing of something bad happeneing, as, on a more realistic and feasible basis, the chances are there, just not as frequently (though those frequencies increase in times of chaos, so a 1:1,000,000 chance might heighten to a 1:100,000 chance or something).You know, from recent studies, it was founded that a person is 15 times more likely to get killed by a falling coconut than from shark attack? ;)
Have fun with it!
- Ronixus
#4
05/30/2005 (11:43 am)
Cool idea! If you think about a lot of the classic action movies you can see that Murphey's Law, and the hero's ability to think on his feet to work around it, makes for some of the most classic moments in those movies. Just consider Indiana Jones... dude has terrible luck... but he always find a way to beat his luck by using his wits. I also think that something like this would help the player stay 'quick on their feet' as anything could go wrong and they better not start zoning out or they are going to be in trouble. I personally think that this kind of game play makes more sense now that games are getting more and more realistic environments. It would suck to play tetris and have this happen. But playing the new Battlefield 2 and having you machine gun jam up when you whip around the corner behind a group of enemies and having them turn around to see you defensless... that's some fun shit! 
#5
This was in the news a while back and the only good article/blog I can find about it is here. However, for more reference and general info on the laws, see Murphy's Laws.
05/30/2005 (1:13 pm)
How to beat Murphy's Law:let U = urgency let C = complexity let I = importance let S = skill let F = frequency let A = aggravation [set at 0.7 by experts after a poll] ( ( U + C + I ) x ( 10 - S ) ) / 20 x A x 1 / ( 1 - sin( F / 10 ) )
Quote:Project psychologist Dr David Lewis said: "The lesson from this is that, to cut the seemingly unbeatable Murphy's Law gremlins down to size, you need to change one of the elements in the equation.
"So, if you haven't got the skill to do something important, leave it alone. If something is urgent or complex, find a simple way to do it. If something going wrong will particularly aggravate you, make certain you know how to do it."
But he added a note of caution: "There is, of course, a Sod's Law factor to the equation. If you judge your ratings wrongly, you might become too optimistic - and calamity will strike."
This was in the news a while back and the only good article/blog I can find about it is here. However, for more reference and general info on the laws, see Murphy's Laws.
#6
It could really add a lot of humour too. Say if an enemy sets a mine or throws a grenade, but its slips and lands in his boot or something, and hes there rolling around screaming trying to get it out, all his buddies run over to see whats wrong, and then boom...
Youd need to combine it with very good AI for that, as well as good animations, but it could be so good...
06/13/2005 (12:36 pm)
I think this is a great idea! I think weapons jamming/misfiring would be the most common application, as well as grenades not exploding when you or an enemy throw them. You could allow the player to tweak it in the configuration to, so its more likely to happen to an AI player. I can imagine how fun it would be to get jumped by an enemy solder from behind, spin around expecting to die, and then hear a *click* as his gun jams. It could really add a lot of humour too. Say if an enemy sets a mine or throws a grenade, but its slips and lands in his boot or something, and hes there rolling around screaming trying to get it out, all his buddies run over to see whats wrong, and then boom...
Youd need to combine it with very good AI for that, as well as good animations, but it could be so good...
#7
anyhow,
i think this is a great idea and should definitely be experimented with even if it turns out to be too annoying in actual gameplay.
i like it more for gameplay than humor purposes.
one thing to think about is how much you'll inform the player that they're experiencing equipment malfunction.
for example if the car isn't starting, the player may think it's a bug or something they're doing wrong.
perhaps a voice-message like "this equipment sucks!" or something.
06/13/2005 (1:03 pm)
Arg.. jsut fell victim to the old 'Notify me when new replies are posted and while you're at it, clear the edit box and make me type it over with about half the enthusiasm i originally had' GG site feature..anyhow,
i think this is a great idea and should definitely be experimented with even if it turns out to be too annoying in actual gameplay.
i like it more for gameplay than humor purposes.
one thing to think about is how much you'll inform the player that they're experiencing equipment malfunction.
for example if the car isn't starting, the player may think it's a bug or something they're doing wrong.
perhaps a voice-message like "this equipment sucks!" or something.
#8
But I also think this would be pretty frustrating. I suppose you could have some "normal" gear that was reliable, but have the heavy-duty stuff be kinda flaky.
06/13/2005 (1:17 pm)
In a game with this sort of feature, I'd want a powerup/item/research tech that would improve my equipment's reliability. I could choose to go for the "UltraNuke 9000" powerup, or get my current gear to work more consistently.But I also think this would be pretty frustrating. I suppose you could have some "normal" gear that was reliable, but have the heavy-duty stuff be kinda flaky.
#9
since your character presumably gets to know the quirks of the equipment.
naturally could be affected by being stunned, drunk, prescient, etc.
06/13/2005 (1:27 pm)
Or it could be a function of Character experience level, if the game has that,since your character presumably gets to know the quirks of the equipment.
naturally could be affected by being stunned, drunk, prescient, etc.
#10
While I agree that making a game design around Murphy's Law sounds funny...and you can even see it in your head and laugh...I hate to say it but in application Im betting it will be too frustrating.
Dont let me stop ya though. Prove me wrong.
06/13/2005 (1:59 pm)
In Everquest, when I fizzled my spell at a crucial time...I died. It was so frustrating that I would log off.While I agree that making a game design around Murphy's Law sounds funny...and you can even see it in your head and laugh...I hate to say it but in application Im betting it will be too frustrating.
Dont let me stop ya though. Prove me wrong.
#11
At the same time, making sure there's a feasible gameplay element that comes into effect when something actually goes wrong is what will make it worthwhile.
If there's a possibility for the error to cause the player their victory, there should be another way out of the sitiuation should it happen. A chance to make up for the malfunction, or otherwise leave the player in more of a stalemate, so that both parties would have to deal with it.
Just some ideas! ;)
- Ronixus
06/13/2005 (3:23 pm)
@Alfred - That's why you make sure it happens at 'exceptionally rare' times. My guess is that it'd be easy to calculate the present situation and, given certain additional factors happening in that situation, apply a modifier to the chances of a malfunction.At the same time, making sure there's a feasible gameplay element that comes into effect when something actually goes wrong is what will make it worthwhile.
If there's a possibility for the error to cause the player their victory, there should be another way out of the sitiuation should it happen. A chance to make up for the malfunction, or otherwise leave the player in more of a stalemate, so that both parties would have to deal with it.
Just some ideas! ;)
- Ronixus
#12
Short fuses on grenades, 1:1000 will have a 2 second fuse, instead of 5 seconds, so while you're sitting there cookin' it so that it blows up right above the enemy... BOOM
Rockets will sometimes vere to the left, or to the right. Affected by your stance, but there's also a random factor involved.
Gun jams - Of course, stated, but definately uses it, and you've gotta hit a fix jam button to be able to use your weapon again...
06/13/2005 (4:28 pm)
America's Army has been doing this for a long time... and I find it to be a very challenging, realistic, and fun game... some examples:Short fuses on grenades, 1:1000 will have a 2 second fuse, instead of 5 seconds, so while you're sitting there cookin' it so that it blows up right above the enemy... BOOM
Rockets will sometimes vere to the left, or to the right. Affected by your stance, but there's also a random factor involved.
Gun jams - Of course, stated, but definately uses it, and you've gotta hit a fix jam button to be able to use your weapon again...
#13
Just make them happen to the enemies too so that the destruction is spread equally.
06/13/2005 (8:22 pm)
The Murphy's Law problems have to be fairly common, or the player will never know about them.Just make them happen to the enemies too so that the destruction is spread equally.
#14
Make the object of the game "to lose!"
06/14/2005 (9:06 am)
I believe the solution to the problem is easy...Make the object of the game "to lose!"
#15
06/15/2005 (7:05 pm)
I don't know about that.... especially the word LOSE, people don't like to lose, even if it means that they technically win. I'm sure most people would rather be the ones doing the ass-kicking, not the ones GETTING the ass-kicking.
#16
06/15/2005 (7:08 pm)
But I think that the whole concept of murphy's law is a great idea, i'm amazed I haven't heard it before, it just seems like a somewhat obvious direction to take. Weapons jamming, bombs going off, a bear-trap jumping up and biting your hand while you're setting it.... sounds very interesting. I don't think it would be too frustrating as long as you keep HORRIBLE things out, like when your gun jams it should only be for 2 seconds let's say, otherwise it would be a frustrating hassle that would just piss people off. Also, the REAL way to beat Murphy's Law is through skill, the skill to do things right so that nothing CAN go wrong, so maybe it would be better to have some sort of system that let's you eventually overcome the Law almost ALL the time. It all depends on what you want the game to be like. I personally think that no experience system should be employed, instead just make it so that it's less the chance of something going wrong but more the chance that it happens when you're their, for example the coconut thing: my idea is that coconuts fall regularly(not continuosly of course) and if you stand next to a tree for cover, their's the obvious chance that you'll get hit.
#17
The trick would be to carry it out in such a way that it adds drama to a situation without necessarily killing the player. Nothing upsets a player more than being killed by something that's entirely out of their control. (The EQ2 fizzle example is great, and part of the reason that I left my Warlock at lvl 42 after over 1000 hours of play... but that's another story. :)
So if the player's doing really well, break their confidence with little things going wrong. Have the gun jam and allow them to clear it, but not in a huge firefight. Have the vehicle fail to start a couple of times, but let it start just in the nick of time. Let the homing missile lock onto the player, scare the heck of of the player, but let it just miss them, or fail to explode.
The main thing is to use the mechanism to break the confidence of a player who's doing too well, without it killing off players who don't have the skill to deal with sudden, uncontrollable misfortune.
Good luck. :)
06/15/2005 (8:10 pm)
Nice idea, though I suspect that it would be frustrating to many game players if not done well.The trick would be to carry it out in such a way that it adds drama to a situation without necessarily killing the player. Nothing upsets a player more than being killed by something that's entirely out of their control. (The EQ2 fizzle example is great, and part of the reason that I left my Warlock at lvl 42 after over 1000 hours of play... but that's another story. :)
So if the player's doing really well, break their confidence with little things going wrong. Have the gun jam and allow them to clear it, but not in a huge firefight. Have the vehicle fail to start a couple of times, but let it start just in the nick of time. Let the homing missile lock onto the player, scare the heck of of the player, but let it just miss them, or fail to explode.
The main thing is to use the mechanism to break the confidence of a player who's doing too well, without it killing off players who don't have the skill to deal with sudden, uncontrollable misfortune.
Good luck. :)
#18
I like the idea above about dramatic misfires. If you had code that could get a sense of your situation (say if you have 2-3 mobs only 1-4 levels above you within x distance and aggro'd then your gun jams), that would offer a lot to the sense of urgency. Tricky though.
06/16/2005 (1:37 pm)
You know... Fallout had this...it was the trait "Jinxed" And it turned out fine.I like the idea above about dramatic misfires. If you had code that could get a sense of your situation (say if you have 2-3 mobs only 1-4 levels above you within x distance and aggro'd then your gun jams), that would offer a lot to the sense of urgency. Tricky though.
#19
A rather morbid little game where you have a bunch of characters, upon whom you have to play a series of horrid and unfortunate events before eventually killing them off. The winner is the player who gives his or her characters the most horrible and gloomy existence before their inevitable demise.
The "Murphy's Law" topic of the thread reminded me of it :)
06/16/2005 (2:54 pm)
Okay, so this is off the topic of conversation - but has anyone else played the card game "Gloom"? A rather morbid little game where you have a bunch of characters, upon whom you have to play a series of horrid and unfortunate events before eventually killing them off. The winner is the player who gives his or her characters the most horrible and gloomy existence before their inevitable demise.
The "Murphy's Law" topic of the thread reminded me of it :)
#20
The notion of making the mishap obviously not a bug is very important too.
Random misses for sniper rifles, for example, would work too. ( could be based on wind, ie. direction the clouds are moving in)
06/19/2005 (7:05 pm)
@Alfred: of course something like that would be tricky to script (or code) but it would be killer. The notion of making the mishap obviously not a bug is very important too.
Random misses for sniper rifles, for example, would work too. ( could be based on wind, ie. direction the clouds are moving in)
Torque Owner Jeremy Alessi